hope every 1 had a great thanksgiving. we just finished the meal at my in-laws and elaine texted to say c.i. had done a snapshot so i'm getting online really quick to put that up.

the treaty did pass parliament and the white house has released the treaty in english. it's all in the snapshot. this is c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Thursday, November 27, 2008. The White House finally releases a copy of the treaty (knowing that everyone's on a holiday), the treaty passes in the Iraqi Parliament (but not by the required number), chaos and violence continue, a war resister seeks asylum in Germany, and more.

"Iraqi lawmakers today approved a pact allowing U.S. forces to stay in the country through 2011 after winning support from skeptics by promising a public referendum on the plan," explain Raheem Salman and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) and they go on to note that "[a]ccording to the agreement" troops out in 2011! Which agreement? The Arabic one the puppet government thinks is final or the English one the White House refuses to release because, as Adam Ashton, Jonathan S. Landay and Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, "Officials in Washington said the administration has withheld the official English translation of the agreement in an effort to suppress a public dispute with the Iraqis until after the Iraqi parliament votes." This was noted last week in a Congressional hearing as well so it's really past time to stop speaking of the agreement singular. Salman and Susman do a better job explaining this:The pact, while not explicitly stating that an extension can be sought, allows for amendments if both sides agree to them.U.S. officials have indicated that they interpret that as permitting a possible extension, if security conditions in Iraq are deemed too shaky to leave Iraqi security forces in charge. "There is a provision for extension, by agreement of both sides," one U.S. official said in discussing the pact. Yeah, it's a one-year agreement. Only 2009 cannot be changed or cancelled. Everything else that the White House says is set-in-stone is actually a conditional option that can be wiped away by either side. Today the White House finally released the agreement in English. We'll jump in at Article 30 The Period for which the Agreement is Effective:

1) This Agreement shall be effective for a period of three years, unless terminated sooner by either Party pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article.

Get it? Paragraph three: "This Agreement shall terminate one year after a Party provides written notification to the other Party to that effect." Meaning only 2009 is set in stone. It is too late for either party (US or Iraq) to give one year's notice and cancel it in 2009. They can give notice to cancel in 2010 or 2011. The second clause is also worth noting because it weakens the strength of any agreement as well: "This Agreement shall be amended only with the official agrement of the Parties in writing and in accordance with the constitutional proceudures in effect in both countries." That's the aspect that allows for a change and all the 'flowery' respect for Constitutional procedures is hog wash. The Iraqi Parliament needed to have two-thirds of all members (not just members present) to pass the treaty today. They did not have that. According to their Constitution and their laws, that's what was needed. In the US, Congressional approval is needed over all treaties and we know that has not take place. We further know that Barack Obama -- alleged Constitutional scholar -- doesn't give a damn about the Constitution. He show boated and did his little pretty words number while campaigning but despite all his insisting that the treaty would have to come before the Congress -- including becoming one of thirteen co-sponsors on Hillary Clinton's Senate bill insisting upon that -- he shut his corporate mouth and put his tiny tail between his legs to slink off like the disgusting, cowering trash he is. He's not going to stand up for the Constitution 'later.' He couldn't stand up for it right now.

An agreement built upon a systematic disrespect for the rule of law does not suddenly develop one. An agreement built upon lies does not suddenly embrace honesty. The treaty is built on lies and they include the lies to the American people. Why is the US pursuing this treaty? The White House keeps talking about these 'recent' gains in Iraq. Today is November 27th of 2008. Recent would, for most of us, go back no further than the end of spring. But Article 25 explains Nouri al-Maliki and Condi Rice notified the United Nations that the Security Council's mandate would be cancelled at the end of this year . . . last year. al-Maliki's letter was dated December 7th, Rice's December 10th. 'Recent' events?

The agreement the White House has released may not be the official agreement or the final one. It is the one that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari signed November 17, 2008. The note above their signatures states: "Signed in duplicate in Baghdad on this 17th day of November, 2008, in the English and Arabic languages, each text being equally authentic."

That version is published online by the White House in PDF format (click here). The Bully Boy of the United States released the following statement today: "Earlier today, in another sign of progress, Iraq's Council of Representatives approved two agreements with the United States, a Strategic Framework Agreement and a Security Agreement, often called a Status of Forces Agreement or SOFA. The Strategic Framework Agreement sets the foundation for a long-term bilateral relationship between our two countries, and the Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq. Today's vote affirms the growth of Iraq's democracy and increasing ability to secure itself. We look forward to a swift approval by Iraq's Presidency Council. Two years ago, this day seemed unlikely -- but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi parliament. The improved conditions on the ground and the parliamentary approval of these two agreements serve as a testament to the Iraqi, Coalition, and American men and women, both military and civilian, who paved the way for this day."

But wasn't this day 'paved' in December of 2007 when Rice and al-Maliki notified the UN that there would be no extension of the mandate following its December 31, 2008 expiration?

Rumors abound that al-Maliki has consolidated his power with the passage. For the so-bad it's good reporting, check out Alissa J. Rubin, Campbell Robertson and Stephen Farrell of the New York Times proving that reporters can serve up camp too. In the real world CBS News' Elizabeth Palmer explains that this means an extension of US troops in Iraq and link includes video. Meanwhile Ruth explained how certain members of the press are actively participating in the manufacture of consent and deliberately distorting what the treaty says (Ruth utilizes Ayad Allawi's "US-Iraq agreement needs work" from the Boston Globe) to make her point. What happens now in Iraq? The treaty now goes before Iraq's presidency council where the president or either of the country's two vice-presidents can veto it. To pass it requires all three give thumbs up. Only one need give a thumbs down to veto.

The referendrum was included in the vote today and the Los Angeles Times notes: "If voters rejected the agreement in the July 2009 referendum, Iraq's government would have to cancel SOFA or demand changes to it. The terms of the agreement allow either side to give the other a year's notice of cancellation, so if Iraq scrapped the pact, U.S. forces would have to leave the country in July 2010."


Today's violence? Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing that resulted in the death of 1 police force member, a Baghdadroadside bombing that resulted in the death of an Iraqi soldier with three more wounded, another Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left sic more people wounded, a Mosul 'sucide' bombing that took the life of the bomber and left six police officers wounded, a Mosul car bombing that claimed the life of the driver and 2 civilians with 28 more people wounded.

Meanwhile in Germany a US soldier is seeking aslyum. Andreas Buerger (Reuters) reports 31-year-old Iraq War veteran Andre Shepherd self-checked out of the military in 2007 and is now seeking sancturay in Germany where he held a press conference today and declared: "When I read and heard about people being ripped to shreds from machine guns or being blown to bits by the Hellfire missiles I began to feel ashamed about what I was doing. I could not in good conscience continue to serve. . . . Here in Germany it was established that everyone, even a soldier, must take responsibility for his or her actions, no matter how many superiors are giving orders."

In Iraq, UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres wrapped up a thee day visit by visiting with Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani:

Guterres, who was accompanied by Staffan de Mistura, the UN Secretary-General's special representative in Iraq, said UNHCR's operations for uprooted Iraqis had until now focused primarily on refugees in neighbouring states, mainly Syria and Jordan. He told Al-Sistani that the two nations deserved praise for their generosity to Iraqi refugees. UNHCR supports both nations' efforts to assist the Iraqi refugees.
With the improved security situation in Iraq, including in Najaf itself, UNHCR was now moving toward increasing its presence in the country and stepping up its activities on behalf of internally displaced people and returning refugees, the High Commissioner said. The agency is doubling its budget to US$81 million in 2009 and increasing the number of provincial offices from the current 10 to 14, covering the whole country.




iraqjonathan s. landaymcclatchy newspapers
nancy a. youssefadam ashton
the los angeles timestina susman
the new york timescampbell robertsonalissa j. rubinstephen farrell
cbs news
elizabeth palmer
ruths report

posting early. we're at my grandmother's. we'll by at fly boy's parents tomorrow evening. i made my key lime pie (the thing i always bring!) twice - once for here and once for at tomorrow evening.

i hope everybody's got some downtime this holiday. i used to love e-mail. these days, not so much. 1 of the reasons for the change is due to the never ending spam mails. on that topic, this is from elinor mills' 'Spam increasing again after shutdown of hosting company' (cnet):


Spammers knocked offline two weeks ago when their hosting company, McColo Corp., was shut down are finally coming back online, security researchers said on Wednesday.
San Jose, Calif.-based McColo was believed to be responsible for up to 75 percent of all spam, according to Brian Krebs of The Washington Post, who broke the initial story.
Spam volumes, which dropped about 80 percent when McColo was shut down on November 11, remained relatively flat since then until a few days ago when they started climbing up, said Matt Sergeant, senior antispam technologist at MessageLabs, now owned by Symantec.
Since Sunday, the spam volume has risen to about 37 percent of what they were before McColo was unplugged, MessageLabs said.

they are back up. i thought the spammers were on vacation until the start of this week.

and here's a question: why would any 1 send a resume?

i'm looking at it and the guy is qualified for many things (if the resume is legit) but what job does he think i'll give him?

i mean, i guess we could use a nanny. (elaine & c.i. gifted me with 1 year of a nanny when the baby was born. a wonderful gift. but i'm now nanny-free and really do not need 1.)

i have no idea why a stranger would send me his resume.

it makes no sense to me.

i thought, 'well i did my own p.r. company and maybe he's thinking i could speak to some friends ...' but he's not qualified for p.r. work except at an entry level - which would be an insult to him.

speaking of not qualified, how damn hard is it for the press to do their damn job?

alissa j. rubin? is she going to whore herself out for the white house and repeat every lie they tell about the treaty as fact?

if that's what she's planning to do, she better watch her ass because i'm ticked off and so is c.i. and that's more than enough to get the ball rolling on explaining to america how there is a new judith miller in town.

the press coverage of this treaty has been appalling.

and the way the crap-ass 'independent' media has stayed silent is inexcusable.

the fraud amy goodman hasn't bothered to do 1 segment on the treaty. all this time later. there has been a congressional hearing this month. there are some brave voices (a few) covering the treaty (like chris floyd). but the bulk don't do a damn thing.

when the treaty's rammed through i don't want to hear from LYING ASS amy goodman about how awful it is. she couldn't cover it when it mattered so she can just sit her sell-out ass back down.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Wednesday, November 26, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the treaty vote is postponed, the US military announces more deaths, Alissa J. Rubin wins the Who Wants To Be The Next Judith Miller non-reality show, and more.

Starting with the treaty which was due to be voted on today by Iraq's Parliament. Adam Ashton, Jonathan S. Landay and Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) become the first of big media to report the reality that there are two versions of the treaty masquerading as a Status Forces Of Agreement: the US version and the Arabic version Iraqis peruse. The three reporters explain: "The Bush administration has adopted a much looser interpretation of several key provisions of the pending U.S.-Iraq security agreement than the Iraqi government has, U.S. officials said Tuesday -- just hours before the Iraqi parliament was to hold its historic vote. These provisions include a ban on the launch of attacks on other countries from Iraq, a requirement to notify the Iraqis in advance of U.S. military operations and the question of Iraqi legal jurisdiction over American troops and military contractors. Officials in Washington said the administration has withheld the official English translation of the agreement in an effort to suppress a public dispute with the Iraqis until after the Iraqi parliament votes."

The differing versions were noted in the November 19th Congressional hearing. Why others can't report is a question they should have to answer on the record. They should also have to explain why they offered no skepticism (a trait reporters are never supposed to forget to pack) when this is totally expected. During the April 10th US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations hearing the chair, Joe Biden, explained: "The Administration tells us it's not binding, but the Iraqi parliament is going to think it is." You didn't have to be pschyic, you just had to pay attention. Look at how Ghana Broadcasting Corporation reports on the treaty: "Iraq's parliament has agreed to put a controversial deal allowing US troops to stay in the country for another three years to a public vote." Even accepting that it's a three year treaty (when it's not) they see it as a three-year extension, not as a withdrawal. It takes a lot of stupid to see only what you want to see. Alissa J. Rubin and Campbell Robertson (New York Times) proved they're bag-men for the adminstartion but they aren't reporters. They did so in print this morning with nonsense about how the treaty "would be a road map for the complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in three years." One wonders what they packed for the Green Zone that was so all important it required ditching their skepticism? Online, Rubin showed up this morning to break the news that today's vote has been "delayed by at least 24 hours" and to lie that the treaty "would lead to the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in three years." America, meet the new Judith Miller, Little Miss Alissa. Can't tell the truth and can't even remain detached. Alissa whose only concern isn't "What does the treaty say?" but instead, "What does the White House want me to say? Call Crocker! Ask Crocker what I should type!"

She can't read the US version of the treaty. She can't read Arabic and she can't apparently handle the English translation well enough to grasp what it says and what it doesn't. For example, what will or will not happen in 2011 is meaningless in any contract that truly runs for one year (this one runs for 2009) but allows it to be renewed if both parties desire to renew it (for 2010 and 2011) and it can also be modified for both of those years if renewed. So the only thing concrete is 2009. It's tough for glorified general studies majors when they slam into the basics of contract law but real reporters know that they don't just scribble down what the US Embassy tells them. They know that something beyond their education requires they utilize what journalism calls "sources" to walk them through. Alissa can't be bothered.

She doesn't know s**t about how the US Embassies are run throughout the world. What an idiot. Seriously. She's heading the paper's Baghdad division and she doesn't know about US Embassies? Can we say someone's a little too green and needs to be stationed somewhere else to ripen? Every US Embassy, EVERY ONE, has US troops stationed at it to provide protection. EVERY ONE. So, Alissa, how will there be a complete withdrawal of all US troops in 2011 when the US Embassy will remain in Baghdad? How? No, don't go run to Ryan Crocker. You're a reporter and an editor, you damn well should have already known the answer to the question.

CNN lied the nation into an illegal war back in 2002 and 2003 so it's not a big surprise they continue to lie today and maintain that the treaty would "set a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops". No, LIARS, it does not. A one-year extension for the occupation of Iraq was needed and that's what the treaty does. Every year, the United Nations Security Council has passed a one-year mandate which legalizes the presence of foreign troops in Iraq. This one expires December 31, 2008. It needs to be renewed or a new arrangement needed to be reached. That it what the treaty covers. And only the first year cannot be broken by either side. So stop lying, LIARS WHO LIED US INTO WAR.


It's a damn shame that so few in so-called independent media will call the treaty out. But remember that in 2011, file it away. Remember who lied in Big Media and remember who couldn't be bothered with the topic in Little Media. Remember that United for Peace & Justice & Uselessness couldn't even mount an objection.


Of organization, only the American Freedom Campaign got active:Does this sound right to you? Next week, the Iraqi Parliament is expected to vote on whether to approve an agreement setting the terms of the ongoing military relationship between the United States and Iraq. So far, so good. A legislative body, representing the people of a nation, shall determine the extent to which that nation's future will be intertwined with that of another. Of course, one would expect that the United States Congress would be given the same opportunity. That, however, is not the case. Or at least it is not what the Bush administration is allowing to happen. Shockingly, the Bush administration is not even letting Congress read the full agreement before it is signed! We need you to send a message immediately to U.S. House and Senate leaders, urging them to demand the constitutional input and approval to which they are entitled. The administration has asserted that the agreement between the U.S. and Iraq is merely a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and therefore does not require congressional approval. Yet the agreement goes far beyond the traditional limits of a SOFA, which typically set the terms for bringing materials and equipment into a nation and outline the legal procedures that will apply to members of the military who are accused of crimes. Believe it or not, the current agreement contains terms that will actually give Iraq a measure of control over U.S. forces. No foreign nation or international entity has ever been given the authority to direct U.S. forces without prior congressional approval - either through a majority vote of both chambers or a two-thirds vote in the Senate in the case of treaties. If this agreement goes into effect without congressional approval, it will establish a precedent under which future presidents can exercise broad unilateral control over the U.S. military -- and even give foreign nations control over our troops. Congress must take immediate action. Unfortunately, they are about to adjourn for at least a couple of weeks. But it is not too late for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make a statement, signaling their strong belief that Congress will not be bound by and need not fund an agreement that has not been approved by Congress. Please send an E-mail encouraging such action to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid immediately by clicking [here]This is truly a dire situation and we hope that you will join us in calling for action. Thank you. Steve Fox Campaign Director American Freedom Campaign Action Fund

And for the beggars of Panhandle Media, let's be really clear that after the treaty is rammed through is TOO DAMN LATE to finally get around to raising objections.
What is known is that there are two versions and they differ. That was known last week and addressed in the Congressional hearing. Credit to Youssef, Landay and Ashton for reporting that now. The tell-Iraq-one-thing-but-do-another aspect was noted by Joe Biden, the incoming v.p., back in April. The UN mandate expires at the end of this year and another yearly agreement is needed to legalize US forces being on the ground in Iraq. A treaty is going through the process in Iraq but in the US the Congress will be circumvented. If the treaty does not go through a one-year extension of the mandate will be sought. The treaty covers only 2009. Every thing coming after 2009 is optional because it can be modified or either party (Iraq or US) can cancel out on the full treaty.

That is known. So the liars and the fools in the press corps who continue to insist that this one-year treaty means ALL US troops withdraw in 2011 have either been played or think they can play you. They got away with it when they 'reported' the lead up to the illegal war and they're getting away with it right now because they're not being called out. Where are those supposed 'brave' voices?

Norman Solomon, who allegedly gives a damn about Iraq, can write two fan club mash-notes to his wet dream Barack this week but can't write a damn thing about the treaty. Remember that. [Cedric and Wally have spoofed Norman's nonsense this week in "Norman tells all!" & "THIS JUST IN! NORMAN SEES PEE-PEES EVERYWHERE!" and in "Norman discovers his girlish side" & "THIS JUST IN! NORMY LOVES BARACK!"]

The vote has been delayed. Allegedly it will take place tomorrow. CBS News' Elizabeth Palmer observes "that the ruling Shiite and Kurdish parliamentary blocs have enough votes to approve the agreement, but the government wants it to win by a convincing margin -- in part because one of this country's most influential Shiite clerics, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has said he can accept the agreement, provided it has broad public support." AP's Qassim Abdul-Zahra explains that the Kurdish and Shi'ite blocs have indicated their willingness "to hold a national referendum on the deal in 2009. That amounts to a concession to many Sunni Arab legislators, who have said they would support the security pact Wednesday if it was put to a nationwide vote next year." Raheem Salman and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) note demands by Sunni legislators and they observe: "The delay, coming after days of political bargaining and cajoling, underscored Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's concerns about passing the controversial Status of Forces Agreement without a wide margin. The legislature's main Shiite Muslim and Kurdish blocs support the deal, virtually ensuring it would win the 138 votes needed to pass the 275-seat parliament. But Shiite Muslim leaders want to ensure sufficient Sunni votes to guarantee its legitimacy in the eyes of Iraq's Sunnis." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) states, "Sunni Lawmakers also said that their new stipulations, formulated just Tuesday, semmed from discontent over growing Iranian influence across Iraq and a belief that a new administration in Washington may not honor the terms of the deal" and "In exchange for their support for the security agreement, a wide variety of Sunni, Kurdish, and even Shiite parliamentarians are insisting on a political reform package that would increase checks and balances on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Shiite-led government. For the Sunnis, fears of empowering Iraq's Shiite-dominated security forces underpins much of the opposition." On the referendum, Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) adds, "But they have agreed to make the pact subject to a national referendum next year that could require a complete American troop withdrawal by July 2010 -- 18 months ahead of what the agreement now envisions. The referendum was a last-minute concession to Iraq's largest Sunni party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, which has long demanded that the agreement be put to a nationwide vote." "Political theater" Rainia Abouzeid (Time magazine) calls today's delay and notes the recent repeated delays in voting on the treaty and explains puppet Nouri al-Maliki "personally lobbied recalitrant parliamentarians at the nearby Rasheed Hotel" today "in exchanges that degenerated into fiery rows, according to a Maliki aide who was present."
What if the vote goes through tomorrow (or some day) and the referendum is attached? Reuters quotes US Secretary of State Condi Rice declaring, "My understanding is that nothing here delays the entering into force of the agreement and that's really the important point." McClatchy's Adam Ashton agrees: "That's because the vote likely wouldn't take place until July, and the security agreement requires each side to give the other notice of at least one year before ending the pact." OH GOODNESS! The treaty can be modified or cancelled! Who would've guessed! (Yes, that point has been made in the snapshots repeatedly for too long to count. That is why it is a one-year treaty, not a three-year one. A one-year treaty is being signed which can be extended if both parties desire to do so.)

What some desire . . . Reports are that the current US Secretary of Defense -- pro-'surge' Robert Gates -- will remain Sec of Defense under incoming president Barack Obama. File it under "Slogans That Bit You In The Ass." Stan and Rebecca covered this topic last night.

While Barack offers more of the same, UN High Commisoner for Refugees Antonio Gueterres is visiting Iraq and declared today, "We are no expanding our presence inside Iraq. We will have a pressence in 14 governorates by early next year, including here in Ramadi." Gueterres arrived in Baghdad yesterday and his visit continues tomorrow. Sarah Chynoweth and Ada Williams Prince (Washington Post's PostGlobal) report on Iraqi refugees in Jordan and note, "Although life in Jordan is free of gunfire and explosions, it is not free from fear, particularly for Iraqi women and girls. If you are an Iraqi woman in Jordan, your life is filled with dread and uncertainty. Since Iraqis do not have legal status there, they are afraid of being caught by the authorities and deported back to Iraq--even though this does not occur very often. Because of this, many are afraid to come forward to receive health care, even if the services are available and accessible.
If you are a poor Iraqi woman in Jordan, your life is even more difficult. There are tremendous barriers to getting adequate health care: women with limited financial resources often have less knowledge of what medical services are available and how to access them." The Iraq War has created the world's largest refugee crisis and over five million Iraqis have been displaced internally and externally. Total Catholic notes, "The flood of Iraqi refugees into Syria has produced big changes for the Church in the country. Caritas Syria, the local affiliate of the international umbrella group of Catholic aid agencies, has expanded its outreach. Today, it manages more than 2 million [British pounds] a year in projects targeting vulnerable Iraqi refugees, and it co-operates in ecumenical programs with the country's Orthodox community." Derek Gatopoulos (AP) notes that Human Rights Watch released a report today that. HRW explains, "Greece systematically rounds up and detains Iraqi asylum seekers and other migrants in dirty, overcroded conditions and forcibly and secretly expels them to Turkey" and offers:

An Iraqi Kurd from Kirkuk who was among the scores interviewed by Human Rights Watch, made five attempts to cross from Turkey to Greece and was beaten and summarily expelled from Greece. He was also beaten and detained by the Turkish authorities. After the Greek authorities finally registered him, they used detention to deter him from seeking asylum. "They told me that if I asked for asylum and a red card that I would need to spend more time in jail beyond 25 days, but if I didn't want asylum and a red card I could leave detention after 25 days. So, I refused the red card and after 25 days they released me. I got a white paper telling me I needed to leave the country in 30 days.
"I wanted to go to another country to seek asylum, but a friend told me that because they took my fingerprints, they would send me back to Athens. I have now been here a month without papers. Now I am in a hole. I can't go out. I can't stay. Every day, I think I made a mistake to leave my country. I want to go back, but how can I? I would be killed if I go back. But they treat you like a dog here. I have nothing. No rights. No friends."

The report is entitled "Stuck in a Revolving Door: Iraqis and Other Asylum Seekers and Migrants at the Greece/Turkey Entrance to the European Union" and it notes:
Despite the widespread fear among Iraqis of being deported, relatively few are officially deported from Greece. In 2007 Greece deported 405 Iraqis out fo the 9,586 Iraqis who were "arrested to be deported." Since Greece has not been able regularly to deport Iraqis directly to Iraq, this presumably reflects deportations to transit countries, such as air arrivals from Jordan. Because there are now direct air connections between Athens and Erbil through Viking Airlines, a private Scandinavian company that runs charter flights, it appears that some direct deportations from Greece to Iraq have taken place. However, since this connection is not permanent and flights are often interrupted, Greece has mainly sought to deport Iraqis to Turkey on the understanding that Turkey would be more likely to accept Iraqis and (Iranians) than other nationalities under its readmission agreement with Greece because of the relatively cheap and easy option of deporting them by bus across its southeastern land border.

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports four Baghdad roadside bombings which claimed 2 lives and left eighteen people injured.


Today the US military announced: "One U.S. Marine and an U.S. Military Transition team Soldier were killed in a small-arms fire attack while conducting a humanitarian assistance operation near Biaj Nov. 25. Two Marines and three civilians were also wounded in the attack. While in the midst of the unit conducting the mission the unit came under fire by two men, one of whom appeared to be wearing an Iraqi uniform. The Iraqi Security and Coalition forces immediately cordoned off the area. 'The attack appears to have been unprovoked, said Col. Bill Bukner, spokesman for the Multi-National Corps - Iraq. 'It is unknown if the attacker was an Iraqi soldier or an insurgent in disguise.' The incident is under a joint investigation." The announcement brings to 4207 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.

War resister Robin Long was extradited in July. Last month Gerry Condon (Soldier Say No!) wrote an indepth piece on Long and the movement in Canada:

Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who argued fruitlessly five years ago that Canada should join George Bush's invasion of Iraq, was eager to deliver the first deportation of an Iraq War resister. The order to arrest Robin Long came from the top. It was Harper's insurance policy. If he couldn't deport Glass, he would deport Long.While the Canada Border Services Agency shuttled Robin Long from one prison to another, keeping him isolated from friends and supporters, a last-ditch attempt to stop his deportation was mounted by Vancouver lawyer, Shepherd Moss. A hearing was scheduled in Federal Court in Vancouver for Monday morning, July 14. But Robin Long's luck ran out when his case was assigned to Judge Anne McTavish, the author of damaging decisions against Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, the first two GIs to seek refugee status in Canada.Canadian authorities had failed to inform Long of his pending deportation, thus denying him his right to appeal. But Judge McTavish refused to delay Long's deportation. The legal reasons for Corey Glass's were not yet published and could potentially apply to Long. Such was the rush to deport a war resister, however, that Judge McTavish was willing to risk having opposing court decisions on the same issue, within a one week period."Here, we've got a deserter for you."Robin Long was not allowed to attend his own hearing and he was not informed of its outcome. Instead, on the morning of Tuesday, July 15, Canadian immigration police drove him to Canada's border with the U.S. near Blaine, Washington, and loudly announced to their U.S. counterparts, "Here, we've got a deserter for you."Stephen Harper and the Bush Administration got what they wanted, international headlines trumpeting, "Canada Deports U.S. Deserter."The Canadian people learned about the deportation of Robin Long from sketchy media reports. The Canada Border Services Agency, citing "the Privacy Act," refused to give the media any details. How was the deportation carried out? Where did it occur? Who handed Robin Long over to whom? Where was Long held in Canada? Where was he being held in the U.S.?The Privacy Act, enacted to protect the privacy of individuals, was abused by the Conservative government in order to isolate Robin Long and keep Canadians in the dark. Why didn't the Conservative government want Canadians to know the details of this deportation? The word "deportation" connotes an unfortunate but orderly and lawful procedure. What Canadian and U.S. authorities did to Robin Long was more like a "rendition," an extralegal government-to-government kidnapping supposedly reserved for terror suspects. Canadians will be outraged when they hear the truth.
War Resister Assaulted and Threatened in Canadian JailsRobin Long was arrested unlawfully on false grounds and for political reasons. He was held incommunicado. Over a ten-day period, he was transferred to three different Canadian jails. In the Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre, Long was assaulted twice by a group of prisoners who objected to his dreadlock hairstyle. Although he is short and slight, Long was able to fight off his attackers once, and a guard halted the second assault. But Long decided to cut his hair.

That's the definitive piece on Long and thank you to a mutual friend who first called to ask, "Why are you ignoring Gerry?" and then steered me to that essay which I wasn't aware of. Gerry Condon ends his essay noting that you can write Robin care of Courage To Resist robinlong@couragetoresist.org and that "You can also contribute to Robin's brig account that he uses to pay for phone calls to friends and family." And for those wondering if Robin is due to be released before the holidays, Fort Carson Public Affairs Office's Karen Linne explained here August 22nd that he had been sentenced to 15 months and would be credited for "about 40 days" for the time he was held at the Criminal Justice Center in El Paso County prior to the court-martial.

Moving over to US politics, Marie Cocco (Washington Post Writers Group) observed last week, "It is time to stop kidding ourselves. This wasn't a breakthrough year for American women in politics. It was a brutal one." With that in mind, we'll note John Ross' election observations via Counterpunch:
I don't buy Barack Obama as the Messiah. I didn't vote for him (I voted for another Afro-American) and I haven't filed an application to join his regime. He ran a duplicitous, multi-million dollar campaign that masqueraded as a social movement and because it was a gimmick and a shuck, will thwart and demoralize the re-creation of real social movement for years to come. The suckers packed shoulder to shoulder in Grant Park on Election Night were not a movement. 40 years ago, the Left stood in that park and were burning American flags, not waving them - although the reasons were equally specious. Back then, it was the denial of another false Messiah's rightful place on the Democratic Party ticket. We ran a pig for president to underscore our disdain for the electoral process and when Mayor Dailey's cops kidnapped and barbecued our candidate, we turned to yet another Afro-American who was also not the Messiah. In August 1968, the Mayor of Chicago, whose son is now Barack Obama's most trusted political advisor, sent in the real pigs to beat us into the Grant Park grass like so many baby harp seals. Now that was a social movement… Eduardo Galeano does not get it. When he tells Amy Goodman that he has high hopes for El Baracko because black slaves once built the White House for which the president-elect is now measuring the drapes, he does not consider that Obama himself is a slave, a slave to Wall Street and General Motors and Big Oil and Big Ethanol, a slave to the War Machine and U.S. Imperialism and Israel, a slave to We're Number One jingoism, avarice, and greed and the American Nightmare, a slave to the free market and free enterprise and free trade and the flimflam of corporate globalization, and most of all, a slave to the Democratic Party puppet masters who now move his strings. Galeano doesn't seem to recall that Afro-Americans can be mass murderers too. Condi is a killer and Barack's big booster Colin Powell once obligated the United National Security Council to cover up a reproduction of Picasso's "Gernika" before he could lie that contaminated body in the eye about Saddam's make-believe WMDs and jumpstart a war that has now taken a million Iraqi lives. So far. The bloodletting has hardly abated. We are in garbage time. The adulatory garbage being spewed about the virtues of Barrack Obama are a toxic trick on the peoples of the earth. One glaring recent example: 100,000 marched from sea to shining sea in the U.S. last weekend (Nov. 16th) in support of same sex marriage and no one had the moxie to even mention that Barack Obama does not support same sex marriage.

On the issue of equality, Ruth, Kat and Marcia covered the Florida circuit judge overturning Anita Bryant's ban on gay adoption yesterday. Elaine noted US House Rep Rosa DeLauro's Congressional work on breast cancer and Mike covered the judge who yelled "tyrant." Independent journalist David Bacon covers immigration and Obama in a new article at The Nation:


So far, the choice of Janet Napolitano is not encouraging. The Tucson "Operation Streamline" court convenes in her home state every day, and the situation of immigrants in Arizona is worse than almost anywhere else. Napolitano herself has publicly supported most of the worst ideas of the Bush administration, including guest worker programs with no amnesty for the currently undocumented, and brutal enforcement schemes like E-Verify and workplace raids.But Obama does not have to be imprisoned by the failure of Napolitano to imagine a more progressive alternative. In fact, his new administration's need to respond to the economic crisis, and to strengthen the political coalition that won the election, can open new possibilities for a just and fair immigration policy.
Economic crisis does not have to pit working people against each other, or lead to the further demonization of immigrants. In fact, there is common ground between immigrants, communities of color, unions, churches, civil rights organizations, and working families. Legalization and immigrant rights can be tied to guaranteeing jobs for anyone who wants to work, and unions to raise wages and win better conditions for everyone in the workplace.

Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press).

iraq
jonathan s. landay
mcclatchy newspapersnancy a. youssefadam ashton
gerry condon
robin long
john ross
elizabeth palmerthe new york timescampbell robertsonalissa j. rubinthe los angeles timestina susmancbs news
the washington postsudarsan raghavan
marie cocco
david bacon

ruth's 'They were not 'pie fights',' marcia's 'Scapegoating the Clintons to let Barack off da hook' and stan's 'Transportation' are must reads.


currently at congress woman rosa delauro's homepage, you can find the following:

Rosa Speaks on Her Bill H.R. 758 the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act
The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act (H.R. 758), introduced by Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (CT-3). The legislation has 222 bipartisan cosponsors in the House and Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) have introduced companion legislation, which has 19 cosponsors. Additionally, a petition at myLifetime.com calling for passage of the bill has been signed nearly 23 million times. It is also supported by high profile organizations, including BreastCancer.org, Susan G. Komen, CT Breast Cancer Coalition Foundation, and the American Cancer Society. Watch Video

i was enjoying her statements on the treaty that c.i. highlighted today so i clicked on the link and ended up looking around her site. there were many things worthy of noting but i kept thinking about how hillary clinton made a major proposal for breast cancer research and how it was blown off and ignored by the press. so i wanted to do my part to make sure that rosa's work on breast cancer got attention.

oh god, the twit-wit norman solomon has a piece at counterpunch. mr. i was a delegate for barack but pretend like i am a media critic and independent. don't accuse me of being in the tank or i will cry real, big tears. like i did when i lost a friend after almost destroying a marriage.

norman solomon is garbage. cedrics and wally addressed his nonsense last night with 'Norman discovers his girlish side' and 'THIS JUST IN! NORMY LOVES BARACK!' - hysterical but when norman solomon is your subject, the laughs come so easily.

ugh to normy. let's turn to a better subject, barbara lee. this is from her office:

Barbara Lee Elected CBC Chair for 111th Congress
11/19/08

Press Release
For Immediate Release
November 19, 2008

Contact: Julie Nickson
(202) 225-2661

(Washington, D.C.) – Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) was formally named Chair-Elect of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) at a press conference today on Capitol Hill to announce the organization’s leadership for the upcoming Congress.

Lee, who served as a member of the CBC leadership team for the past six years, first as Whip and currently as First Vice Chair, praised the leadership of outgoing Chair Congresswoman Carolyn Kilpatrick. In the 111th Congress, CBC members will chair the Judiciary, Homeland Security, and the Ways and Means Committee, and numerous subcommittees. Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC) will serve as Majority Whip of the Democratic Caucus and President-Elect Barack Obama will become the first African-American President.

“I want to thank Chairwoman Kilpatrick who has done a phenomenal job in keeping our caucus together and for the many legislative victories achieved under her leadership and to congratulate our newly elected officers. The 111th Congress will not only present unique and difficult challenges, but also historic opportunities for our caucus. I look forward to working with all of our CBC members to craft and implement a unified and bold agenda for the 111th Congress,” said Lee.

“I plan to build upon the great leadership of our former chairs and to meet our caucus challenge of ‘Changing Course, Confronting Crises, and Continuing the Legacy’ of those who paved the way for each of our members to have the honor to serve and fight for equality, justice and peace for our African-American communities and for the entire nation. The CBC is rightly called the conscience of the Congress, and I thank these brilliant and dedicated public servants for this opportunity.”

Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver II (D-MO) will serve as the First Vice Chair, Congresswoman Donna Christensen (D-VI) as Second Vice Chair, Congressman G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) as Secretary, and Congresswoman Yvette Clarke (D-NY) as Whip.

so congratulations to congress woman barbara lee!

and that's it. i keep playing around and thinking, 'oh that too!' wait!

that's 1 i do have to tackle. and i'll probably make it the title of this post.

bbc reports, 'US Defence Secretary Robert Gates is to stay on in charge of the Pentagon when Barack Obama takes office as president, according to US media reports.'

robert gates is staying. it is official.

robert parry, what say you?

remember robert parry, how damn demented and NUTSO you got during the primaries. remember how you savaged hillary clinton? remember how you LIED?

remember going on democracy now and arguing that you could tell what hillary would do as a result of what bill did - implying that she takes orders from him? or that all women are reflections of their men?

which is it, pig f**ker parry?

i used to respect you, not anymore.

robert parry juked all over himself and then likced it up. told the world it tasted like 'bama juice!' couldn't stop singing the praises of barry. 'let's hear it for the boy,' robert parry would sing, 'let's hear it for my man!'

but now he's made clear there will be no prosecutions for torture. remember how you said hillary would do that robert, she'd refuse to prosecute, but barack woldn't!

oops, you lied again.

and now robert gates - whom you loathe - will continue at dod. and that's your lover boy doing it, parry, that's your barack.

how does it feel ... to be a complete moron?


let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Tuesday, November 25, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Iraq continues to rake in big bucks and basic services continue to be denied to Iraqis, Parliament's vote on the treaty may take place tomorrow, and more.

Starting with the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. The New York Times notes that there is some doubt as to whether a vote will be called in Parliament Wednesday on the treaty. Last week, it was stated the treaty would come to a voate in the Parliament on Monday. By Saturday, the date had changed to Wednesday at the earliest. Now some are questioning whether it will come to a vote by then. Iran's Press TV reports that a boycott is threatened by the Iraqi Accord Front and quotes Abdelkareem al-Samarraie (of the IAF) stating, "The IAF would not enter the parliament if there was no popular referendum over the agreement or assurances from the US side." In an apparent reaction to that, the puppet is insisting upon action. Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reports Nouri al-Maliki and Iraq's President Jalal Talbani have launced a high-pressure effort to force Iraqi MPs to vote on the treaty tomorrow. Should the treaty be voted on tomorrow and find 'support' in Parliament, it would next go to the presidency council made up of Talabani and his two vice presidents. Press TV notes that the Tareq al-Hashemi, the Sunni v.p., has "also called on the country's politicians not to make any 'hasty' decision on the agreement". Press TV also reports MP Hussein al-Faluji has declared that the treaty should include an obligation on the part of the US "to pay compensation for its 2003 invasion of the country." 'Support' in a vote is still in question because while the US and al-Maliki insist a simple majority vote is all that is needed, leaders and documents (including the country's Constitution) maintain that a two-thirds vote would be needed for the Parliament to pass the treaty. Pepe Escobar (Asia Times) cites press reports which estimate that opponents of the treaty now have 106 votes but require 138 and that "Maliki's government is heavily betting on the pact being approved by a simple majority. There's fierce dispute also on this point - according to the Iraqi constitution, it should be a two-thirds majority (not unexpectedly, the Bush administration has already declared it will violate Article II, Section 2 of the US constitution, claiming that no Senate approval of the pact is necessary. An emasculated US Congress has responded with thunderous silence)."

In terms of US silence, look to the incoming presidential ticket. In terms of Congress, many members of the House have been vocal. Today US House Rep Joe Sestak contributes "Acute flaw in Iraq deal over forces" (Philadelphia Inquirer):

On Nov. 16, the Iraqi cabinet approved a U.S.-Iraqi status-of-forces agreement. This week, as the Iraqi parliament considers it for final approval, I am once again voicing my grave concerns about the agreement. This is probably the last chance I and other lawmakers will get to voice our objections. President Bush has chosen to craft the document as an executive agreement instead of a treaty, which means it will not require congressional ratification. I have always believed that the war in Iraq is a tragic misadventure that has siphoned off vital military capability from Afghanistan - especially our ability to patrol the border with Pakistan, where al-Qaeda's leadership has found a long-standing haven. That said, from my 31-year military background, I also understand the need for a deliberate withdrawal from Iraq that does not put our troops in unnecessary danger. Our continued presence in the region will therefore be necessary for a limited period of time. And due to the imminent expiration of the U.N. mandate that permits U.S. troops to remain in Iraq legally, we must have a new legal agreement to remain after Dec. 31. However, this status-of-forces agreement is simply not the best means of achieving that. Americans should be very concerned that, in an attempt to highlight Iraqi autonomy and the increasing bilateral ties between our countries, President Bush has put our uniformed men and women in legal peril. The final version of the agreement will permit the Iraqi courts to exercise jurisdiction over American soldiers under limited circumstances. What those circumstances are remains unclear, as do the crimes for which they may be prosecuted.
Back in July, US House Reps Bill Delahunt and Rosa DeLauro co-authored "The Wrong Partnership for Iraq" (Washington Post). Last week, DeLauro issued this statement:

"Our brave men and women in uniform have performed brilliantly and after more than five -and-a-half years of war I am pleased to see the Bush Administration finally acknowledge that it is in our national interest to set a timeline to responsibly redeploy our forces out of Iraq. Many questions remain, however, over an agreement that I believe must be approved by Congress in order to have the force of law. Yet, the administration, which has utterly failed to consult with Congress on this issue, has no intention of submitting the accord for approval.""The Iraqi Parliament is beginning a robust debate over the agreement, literally breaking out into a physical confrontation earlier today. According to the Iraqi Constitution, a 2/3 majority vote is still needed to both pass a law regulating the ratification of international agreements in general and to approve the U.S-Iraq security agreement itself." "While I applaud efforts in Iraq to uphold the country's new constitution, I am deeply troubled by the Bush Administration's disregard for ours. I have heard from scholars, legal experts and others on this matter and believe there is no precedent for an agreement such as this that authorizes offensive U.S. combat operations without congressional approval." "It is highly unlikely that the agreement will be approved by the Iraqi Parliament before it recesses in less than a week and by the U.S. Congress before the U.N. Mandate expires on December 31. I strongly urge the administration to once again work with the Iraqi Government and the UN Security Council on a brief extension of the UN Mandate, the sole instrument providing our troops with the legal authority to fight in Iraq, while giving both legislative bodies the necessary time to carefully review, deliberate over and vote on the accord. An agreement of this magnitude for the future of both countries deserves that much."

DeLauro issued that statement the same day Delahunt chaired a Congressional hearing on the issue last week. In the case of the hearing, it wasn't Congress members that were silent, it was the press. The only major daily newspaper coverage of the hearing was Jenny Paul's "US-Iraq security pact may be in violation, Congress is told" (Boston Globe) and no evening network newscast covered it. And NPR didn't cover it nor did Pacifica Radio, not even its fabled "Free Speech" Radio News program. No special broadcast of the hearings live, not a damn thing from Pacifica which wasted more money than they had to waste on their hideous election coverage and are now so in the red they're at risk of losing stations. (That's not a cry for donations, they've so mismanaged listeners pledges that they really don't deserve any more.) (Not to mention abusing the public's trust and LYING on air repeatedly by refusing to identify on air 'independent critics' who had endorsed the candidate they came on to 'analyze.') So Congress, at least the House, really isn't the problem. The problem is the press: All Things Media Big and Small. Congress has not been silent. US House Rep Barbara Lee issued the following statement last week:


"Although a final version of the agreement reached by the Administration and the Government of Iraq has yet to be publicly announced and made available, reports of the content along with leaked copies of the agreement lead to the conclusion that this agreement will be unacceptable to the American people in its current form and should be rejected. "For starters, the Bush agreement commits the United States to a timetable that could leave U.S. troops in Iraq until Dec. 31, 2011. Aside from the fact that the America people are plainly fed up with this unnecessary war and occupation in Iraq and want to see it ended, occupying Iraq for three more years under the Bush plan would cost American taxpayers $360 billion based on current spending levels. That money obviously could be better spent digging our economy out of the ditch the policies of the Bush Administration has put it in. "Second, the Bush agreement undermines the constitutional powers of the next president by subjecting American military operations to 'the approval of the Iraqi government,' by giving operational control to 'joint mobile operations command centers' controlled by a joint American-Iraqi committee. Throughout history, American troops have been placed under foreign control in peacekeeping operations only where authorized under treaties ratified by the Senate. No American president has ever before claimed the unilateral power to cede command of American troops to a foreign power. "When Congress next convenes this week, it should consider and pass H.R. 6846, which I have introduced in the House and Senator Biden has introduced in the Senate, which will prohibit the unilateral deployment of U.S. armed forces or the expenditure of public funds to guarantee the security of Iraq without prior approval of Congress."

The US is pushing hard for the vote to take place tomorrow. This morning on Air Force One, White House spokesperson Dana Perino told the press that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker was in contact (pressuring) with Iraqi MPs and she stated of the treaty, "We're hopeful. They've had a lot of debate in their country. And I think that if you look at the violence that took place there yesterday that was indiscriminate and killed many people, that it reminds us that the Iraqis have come a long way, but they're not quite there yet to be able to take care of all their security needs on their own. And they need -- they continue to need our support. That's what Prime Minister Maliki has said, their Defense Ministry, amongst others. But they'll have their debate. And this si the process that we knew was going to take a while. But we remain hopeful that the council of representatves will pass it out tomorrow." Alissa J. Rubin and Campbell Robertson (International Herald Tribune) report, "Intensive last-minute negotiations were under way Tuesday to corral votes in the Iraqi Parliament" -- see, Crocker's very, very busy. Deborah Haynes and Wail al-Haforth (Times of London) report that the Iraqi Accord Front has stated "it will only give the nod if the public is allowed to vote on the deal in a referendum next year." Haynes also reports on the various reactions in Baghdad to the allegedly impending vote including this: "Ibti Sam al-Hafaji, an assistant hairdresser and beauticiain dressed in a white overall, plans to switch a small television set in the salon on to watch the Parliamentary vote on Wednesday. 'I am excited. All of us are waiting for the result'." Tina Susman and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) explain, "Sunni lawmakers today listed a host of demands, ranging from sweeping political reforms to amnesty for prisoners, in exchange for supporting a pact to keep U.S. forces in Iraq through 2011, dimming Iraqi leaders' hopes for a smooth victory when parliament votes on the measure."

And the puppet is sweating bullets as he attempts to finally deliver to the White House anything of the things they've announced they must have. Pepe Escobar also notes that "a frantic Maliki keeps threatening that in case of defeat, "extending the presence of the international forces on Iraqi soil will not be our alternative". Maliki goes for the jugular; if the pact is not approved, US forces will be constrained to an "immediate withdrawal from Iraq". Not surprisingly, the US State Department is on the same wavelength. Plus, of course, the Pentagon -- which in a surreal twist has been threatening to evacuate 150,000 troops from Iraq in a flash in case the pact is knocked out; this when the Pentagon had been insisting non-stop that withdrawing within president-elect Barack Obama-proposed 16 months is unrealistic." Yes, but we all learned in 2008 that troops can leave very quickly and, in fact, that if Barack wanted to end the illegal war, he could withdraw all 150,000 US troops before his first 100 days were completed. AP's Hamza Hendawi and Qassim Abdul-Zahra note that, for all of his bluster, "it is improbable that al-Maliki would abandon the idea of a renewal of the UN madate and push out the Americans, given his worries about security." He doesn't have the guts and he doesn't have the power. If the treaty isn't passed by the Parliament or if it isn't passed by the presidency council, al-Maliki will be begging for a UN mandate renewal in full -- and not just the partial aspect he's going to ask for to prevent Iraqi assets from being seized by creditors. Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports that the vote is being seen as a referendrum on al-Maliki, that the puppet is seen as "autocratic" and quotes an unnamed "senior Iraqi official" stating, "He doesn't realize that a coalition put him in power."

American Freedom Campaign offers an option for you to be heard by the US Congress:Does this sound right to you? Next week, the Iraqi Parliament is expected to vote on whether to approve an agreement setting the terms of the ongoing military relationship between the United States and Iraq. So far, so good. A legislative body, representing the people of a nation, shall determine the extent to which that nation's future will be intertwined with that of another. Of course, one would expect that the United States Congress would be given the same opportunity. That, however, is not the case. Or at least it is not what the Bush administration is allowing to happen. Shockingly, the Bush administration is not even letting Congress read the full agreement before it is signed! We need you to send a message immediately to U.S. House and Senate leaders, urging them to demand the constitutional input and approval to which they are entitled. The administration has asserted that the agreement between the U.S. and Iraq is merely a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and therefore does not require congressional approval. Yet the agreement goes far beyond the traditional limits of a SOFA, which typically set the terms for bringing materials and equipment into a nation and outline the legal procedures that will apply to members of the military who are accused of crimes. Believe it or not, the current agreement contains terms that will actually give Iraq a measure of control over U.S. forces. No foreign nation or international entity has ever been given the authority to direct U.S. forces without prior congressional approval - either through a majority vote of both chambers or a two-thirds vote in the Senate in the case of treaties. If this agreement goes into effect without congressional approval, it will establish a precedent under which future presidents can exercise broad unilateral control over the U.S. military -- and even give foreign nations control over our troops. Congress must take immediate action. Unfortunately, they are about to adjourn for at least a couple of weeks. But it is not too late for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make a statement, signaling their strong belief that Congress will not be bound by and need not fund an agreement that has not been approved by Congress. Please send an E-mail encouraging such action to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid immediately by clicking [here] This is truly a dire situation and we hope that you will join us in calling for action. Thank you. Steve Fox Campaign Director American Freedom Campaign Action Fund

Turning to economics, UPI reports that that October was a turnaround for Iraqi oil following the "four-month decline" as Iraq upped exports "by more than 7 percent from Sepember through October" and while oil sales brought Iraq $41 billion in 2007, in 2008 so far, they've already taken in $58.6 billion. This while Reuters reports that "Iraq has approved a $144 million contract with Argentina's Tenaris Oil Filed Service, the world's largest maker of seamless steel pipes for the energy inudstry". Yesterday Edward Gismatullin (Bloomberg News) reported that Royal Dutch "Sehll may bid for Iraqi fields in the first half of 2009". The desire for new contracts (read: Greed) comes as Shell's older contract is in the news. Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) notes that Iraq's Parliament today publicly objected to a flare gas contract awarded to Shell earlier this year and Rasheed quotes a portion of the statement: "Shell will be the sole company entitled to deal or process gas in southern Iraq. We call this a monopoly on Iraqi gas . . . Shell will seize everything." Despite all the money coming in, Daniel Williams (Bloomberg News) reports that the Sadr City section of Baghdad is still plagued by "lakes of sewage overflow trenches or bubble up from broken underground pipes" and also notes "electricity is still spotty, drinking water is scarce and health care is limited".

Let's stay with money for a bit more. Bobby Ghosh (Time magazine) examines who pays Saif Abdallah who was bragging to him in 2006 that he had "helped kill dozens, possibly hundreds of American soldiers" and Ghosh quotes Abdallah stating then, "Anybody who wants to kill American soldiers, if they pay me, I work for them." And now the US tax payers fork over to Abdallah because he's an "Awakening" Council member. As a little over half of the "Awakening" members have been turned over to Baghdad's control, Ghosh explores what might happen to the thugs placed on the payroll by the US military command:

Many Iraqis believe the al-Maliki government will string the SOI along while U.S. troops remain in the country. When the Americans have left, there will be a reckoning -- and it could well be bloody.
After a great deal of pressure from the U.S. military, the Iraqi government this month finally took charge of paying the salaries for the 54,000 SOI in the Baghdad area. (Abdallah's group remains on the U.S. payroll.) In early November, 3,000 SOI were inducted into the police training academy. Al-Ameri says 15,000 to 20,000 SOI will be inducted into Iraqi security forces, but only after further verification. The rest will have to give up their arms and take up other jobs -- as carpenters, plumbers, electricians and so on. "We'll give them training if necessary," he adds. (See pictures of Iraq's revival.)

From thugs to arms. Over the weekend, Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reported that, without the knowledge of the central government in Baghdad or the US, the Kurdistan region of Iraq had "three planeloads of small arms and ammunition imported from Bulgaria which has "alarmed U.S. officials who have grown concerned about the prospect of an armed confrontation between Iraqi Kurds and the government at a time when the Kurds are attempting to expand their control over parts of northern Iraq." Today the Post quotes al-Maliki spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh stating, I don't deny there is some tension between the KRG and the federal government due to many issues. It won't reach to a level of conflict." Press TV quotes the KRG's official response: "The Kurdistan Regional Government continues to be on the forefront of the war on terrorism in Iraq. With that continued threat, nothing in the constitution prevents the KRG from obtaining defense materials for its regional defense." Meanwhile Eric Watkins (Oil & Gas Journal) explains
that the August 2007 production-sharing contracts the Kurdish government signed with various corporations continue to be ruled "illegal".

Moving to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing wounded two people and a Nineveh bombing wounded two people.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 child wounded in a Mosul shooting.

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 2 corpses discovered in the Tigris River, near Suwayra.

Today the US military announced: "TIKRIT, Iraq – A Multi-National Division – North Soldier died from a non-battle related cause in Diyala province Nov. 24. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense." The announcement brings to 4205 the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war."

In news of Iraq's refugee crisis, UNHCR spokesperson William Spindler announced today:

High Commissioner António Guterres arrives in Baghdad today for a 3-day visit that will include meetings with top government officials and a review of UNHCR's work with our national and international staff in the country.
The Iraq mission is the third by Guterres in 18 months and will include field visits aimed at getting a better perspective on programmes for internally displaced Iraqis as well as prospects for the possible eventual return of refugees.
There are more than 2 million IDPs and close to 2 million Iraqi refugees outside the country, according to figures provided by host governments.

*** Non-Iraq related, Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) notes an upcoming event. And if you're not familiar with Marcelo Lucero's murder, you can see Third's "Marcelo murdered by thugs, ignored by 'leaders'". ****

Greens in Suffolk work to stop the hate and to honor the life of Marcelo LuceroThe Green Party of Suffolk offers its condolences to the family of Marcelo Lucero, and hopes for an awakening and healing on Long Island after the hate crime that led to his death.The Green Party is a different kind of political party. The Green Party was created from, and works together with, larger movements for social justice, such as the environmental movement and the civil rights movement. In Suffolk County, members of the Green Party have struggled with ways to address the murder of Marcelo Lucero through their personal efforts, movement efforts, and electoral efforts.The Green Party sees the election process as a powerful way to address grievances with our government and to force change. Because of this, when local Greens were concerned with the direction of the County Executive during his last campaign, and concerned that he was cross-endorsed by both major parties, the Green Party set out to offer an alternative on the ballot. The Green Party campaign for County Executive in 2007 focused on tolerance and respect for immigrants. Unfortunately, due to the collaboration between the major parties, the fact that the major parties in Albany write the ballot laws, and the fact that the major parties control the Board of Elections, our candidate was not allowed on the ballot. Still, the Green Party continued with a write-in campaign. The Green Party candidate for County Executive was able to speak to local groups about the need to create fair immigration policies, and the need to stop discriminatory laws being proposed in the Suffolk County Legislature. We were able to hold meetings and create press releases suggesting more positive directions for government action in regards to the treatment of immigrants. And, voters had the option to protest government actions by writing in a worthy candidate who expressed their views.As a movement, the Green Party is part of an international movement focused on its four pillars: Social and economic justice; Grassroots Democracy; Ecological Wisdom; and Non-violence. There are partisan and non-partisan networks, list-serves and clubs where Green Party members share action alerts, information, and proposals for public policy.Personally, many local greens have addressed the issue of racism in the community and in their own lives. Green Party members have attended community meetings, vigils, and rallies to speak out against racism and against the murder of Marcelo Lucero based on discrimination against Hispanic people. The Green Party has offered people of all races workshops in dismantling racism and in understanding how white privilege affects all of us. The Babylon Green Party will host a presentation on "The Necessity of Immigrants to the LI Economy" with speaker Kirby Einhorn of LI Wins, on January 7, 2009 at 7pm at the Pisces Café in Babylon. The Green Party of Suffolk is interested in gathering together people interested in working on issues of social justice through a personal, movement, and/or electoral strategy. And, we are especially interested in people who may want to be candidates or campaign staff for upcoming races against politicians who are not making fair and equal public policy. The local Green Party can be contacted at (631) 351-5763 or go to: www.gpsuffolk.org. Background: Green Party of Suffolk: www.gpsuffolk.org

More information on the Babylon Green Party Gathering:The January 7, 2009 Babylon Green Party Gathering will feature Kirby Einhorn of LI Wins on the necessity of immigrants to the LI economy.The event will be held at Pisces Café, 14A Railroad Avenue, Babylon, NY (631-321-1231) www.piscescafe.net Come hungry! For directions to the Babylon Green Gathering, call 631-422-4702 or email ian.wilder@yahoo.com Children are welcome. All gatherings are free of charge, and open to the public.


iraq
the new york times
pepe escobar
jenny paulthe boston globe
bill delahunt
rosa delaurojoe sestak
alissa j. rubinthe new york times
katherine zoepf
campbell robertson
deborah haynes
the washington posternesto londono
the los angeles timestina susman

we hate tina! but we love isaiah. that's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Tina Fey: America's Sour-Heart" and while i'm no tv and nbc, let me talk heroes.

did you watch?

if you didn't, remember you can watch online.

and you should!

i think it's my favorite episode of the year.

for example, i'm sick of the woman playing nathan for a fool and am thrilled that his mother (angela) might be on to it. there was a look she gave the woman.

but you had claire and elle and they were great and actually doing something.

you had nathan and peter together and that hardly happens ever. yes, they are my 2 favorite hunks on the show but they are also brothers and how the writers think they can keep those 2 from having scenes together, i don't know.

hiro's lost his memory and thinks he's 10 or something. that's great because it lets him be goofy for areason. sometimes they make hiro come off stupid. with his having lost his memory, it makes sense for him to act childlike (he thinks he's a child).

it was just a really great episode.

i'm also hopeful that when the eclipse is over, all of them will have their powers back.

i want peter to have his powers.

i also am damn tired of nathan and peter's father.

i could take him as a bad guy if it weren't for the fact that he can (and has) grabbed others powers. i don't like that storyline.

when the eclipse is over, they probably won't all have their powers back but i hope that happens.

this really was a great episode and if you haven't watched it, please do. i have not given away everything.

there's a lot i didn't even mention.

like matt.

i was asked in an e-mail why i didn't think matt was sexy. also why i didn't think the doctor was. sharraf? sharif? i don't like the doctor. it has nothing to do with the actor. it has to do with the cocoons his character imprisons people in.

as for matt? you know if you asked c.i., she'd probably tell you matt was the sexiest. i'm not joking. i can see matt as sexy but i respond to the most obvious eye candy. that's just how i am.
matt is a nice looking man. if he's some 1's favorite, cool.

and that's going to be it for me tonight. i keep stopping to ask flyboy what he thinks is happening next week? you really need to see this episode.


let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'


iraq
anna badkhen
adam ashton
ned parker
the los angeles times
alissa j. rubin
the new york times
katherine zoepf
campbell robertson
steven lee myers
joan didion
jeremy r. hammond
alan cowell
simon assaf
the socialist worker

i wasn't interested in the thinker or whatever the other thing was (see weds. post) in answer to e-mails. didn't like my results. (seriously.)

but there's a thing called o'faust that i will note. you take a sample of writing (or type up 1 on the spot) and it tells you what the sample is most like. i was playing around with it just for fun but saw elaine had a similarity with her favorite writer of children's books and i had to copy and paste that because it will make her day. she loves frank baum.

so i analayzed my writing from thursday's post and it came back:




using elaine's writing from this piece (no quotes or excerpts from others)


elaine also wrote a piece of fiction posted at betty's site this week and when you analyze that?


betty heard that and said, 'don't do me!' so i didn't. she said for me to put in: 'i am in awe of elaine!'

ava and c.i. from this piece:





wally and cedric (joint-post) from their thursday post:


marcia? from this post:



i used this by ruth to figure her out and she's so philsophical!




and mike from his post thursday comes back


c.i.? i used this 1 and

Edgar Allen Poe

In many ways this text resembles to those of Edgar Allen Poe .. Thanks! It was a pleasure for me to read!

70% alike!

kat's post comes back:



this 1 of stan's comes back with:


trina's post comes back with:


and because it's late, we'll call that a post. not surprising that ava and c.i. would write like oscar wilde, is it? they're very witty.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Friday, November 21, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, the proposed treaty is protested in Baghdad, and more.


Starting with the treaty passed off as a Status Of Forces Agreement. Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) reports on yesterday Parliament activity: "Critics of the agreement tried to further put off discussion Thursday, shouting and banging on tables. . . . But lawmakers in the 30-member Sadr bloc, who have been opposing the agreement, failed to stop the legislation's progress. speaker Mahmoud Mashadani extended the parliament session so debate would continue on Saturday and a vote could still come next week. He already had canceled a leave that had been scheduled for lawmakers next week to cover several Muslim holidays, saying the vote on the pact was too important to delay further." However, on the holiday, CNN notes, "If a vote has to be held beyond Monday, Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman said it could be delayed by the annual hajj religious pilgrimage and Eid al-Adha, the Muslim holiday that comes at the end of the pilgrimage." The Los Angeles Times' blog notes that the treaty needs to be read aloud in the Parliament a third time before going to a vote. Salah Hemeid (Al-Ahram Weekly) observes, "It is not clear if the endorsement requires a simple, or a two thirds, majority of the 275-member legislative -- the latter a constituational requirement for key legislation. It is also unclear if the assembly will debate the agreement article by article or vote, as the government wants, on the whole package, or what will constitute a quorum should its detractors try to prevent its passage by astaining or walking out."

Before we go further, in the US you can make your voice heard via American Freedom Campaign:Does this sound right to you? Next week, the Iraqi Parliament is expected to vote on whether to approve an agreement setting the terms of the ongoing military relationship between the United States and Iraq. So far, so good. A legislative body, representing the people of a nation, shall determine the extent to which that nation's future will be intertwined with that of another. Of course, one would expect that the United States Congress would be given the same opportunity. That, however, is not the case. Or at least it is not what the Bush administration is allowing to happen. Shockingly, the Bush administration is not even letting Congress read the full agreement before it is signed! We need you to send a message immediately to U.S. House and Senate leaders, urging them to demand the constitutional input and approval to which they are entitled. The administration has asserted that the agreement between the U.S. and Iraq is merely a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and therefore does not require congressional approval. Yet the agreement goes far beyond the traditional limits of a SOFA, which typically set the terms for bringing materials and equipment into a nation and outline the legal procedures that will apply to members of the military who are accused of crimes. Believe it or not, the current agreement contains terms that will actually give Iraq a measure of control over U.S. forces. No foreign nation or international entity has ever been given the authority to direct U.S. forces without prior congressional approval - either through a majority vote of both chambers or a two-thirds vote in the Senate in the case of treaties. If this agreement goes into effect without congressional approval, it will establish a precedent under which future presidents can exercise broad unilateral control over the U.S. military -- and even give foreign nations control over our troops. Congress must take immediate action. Unfortunately, they are about to adjourn for at least a couple of weeks. But it is not too late for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make a statement, signaling their strong belief that Congress will not be bound by and need not fund an agreement that has not been approved by Congress. Please send an E-mail encouraging such action to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid immediately by clicking [here]
This is truly a dire situation and we hope that you will join us in calling for action. Thank you. Steve Fox Campaign Director American Freedom Campaign Action Fund

Today White House spokesperson Dana Perino declared on Air Force One that the treaty would be available to the American peoope "soon," "As soon as we possibly can, when we're -- agreement is reached, we'll be able to do that. You bet. . . . As soon as we possibly can, when we're -- agreement is reached, we'll be able to do that. You bet. . . .
I don't know exactly the timing of it. Obviously, we've provided full briefings to appropriate members of Congress. I think over 200 members of Congress saw it. Secretaries Rice and Gates, amongst others -- I think General Lute -- were up on Capitol Hill to provide that information to the citizens, representatives in Congress. And then as soon as we are able to, we'll provide the English language, sure. . . . . I actually can't tell you when it will be. I just don't know." In other words, no, the treaty isn't being released to the American people anytime soon.


In Iraq, Campbell Robertson and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) note the Sunni attitude conveyed by MP Aala Maki, "To be clear, it is not the treaty that is the problem. What will be built on the treaty, that is the problem." They're dancing to get their palms greased. Rania Abouzeid (Time magazine) reports, "The discord in Iraq's parliament, and on its streets, over the Baghdad government's Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Washington is over a lot more than the date on which U.S. troops are to withdraw and the rules governing their conduct until then. As the rabble-rousing Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr made clear on Friday, it's also about which Iraqi parties will best leverage the Americans' eventual departure to their own political benefit. Sadr drew thousands of supporters to Firdous Square in central Baghdad on Friday to protest against the draft accord, which awaits a ratification vote in Iraq's parliament on Monday."

CBS and AP cover the protest and note, "After a mass prayer, demonstrators pelted the effigy with plastic water bottles and sandals. One man hit it in the face with his sandal. The effigy fell head first into the crowd and protesters jumped on it before setting it ablaze." AP's Hamza Hendawi reports the demonstration Moqtada al-Sadr called last week took place today following prayers in Baghdad and that the Bully Boy of the United States was "burned" in "effigy" "in the same central Baghdad square where [US shipped in exile] Iraqis beat a toppled statue of Saddam Hussein with their sandals five years earlier" and the Bush stand-in was also "pelted . . . with plastic water bottles and sandals" and it "held a sign that said: 'The security agreement . . . shame and humiliation'." CNN adds, "The demonstration brought out one of the largest crowds to congregate in Baghdad since protests against the agreement started this year. The square was sealed off and traffic was blocked as thousands chanted 'No no to the agreement,' 'No no America,' and 'Out, out occupation'." Deborah Haynes (Times of London) quotes Sheikh Abelhadi al-Mohammedawi telling those assembled, "If they [US] do not get out then and those with me are ready to drive them out in the method that we see fit, provided that it does not go against religion." AFP reports that a statement from Moqtada al-Sadr was read to the crowd and quotes it as follows: "If they don't leave the country I am going to be with you to make them leave in a way that suits you, as long as it doesn't go against the religion. And if they leave the country and you fear that the enemy coming from outside will transform your land into a battlefield, I and my followers will be a shield for Iraq." BBC (which has text and video on the demonstration) quotes al-Sadr's statement thusly: "Let the government know that America is and will not be of any use to us because it is the enemy of Islam." BBC provides a photo essay here. Tina Susman and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) describe the scene around the demonstration, "Iraqi army snipers perched on rooftops along the broad avenues leading to the square, a public gathering spot in the middle of a traffic roundabout decorated with fountains and greenery. The effigy of Bush, wearing a suit and tie and carrying a briefcase, dangled for hours as the crowd, which stretched for several city blocks, knelt in prayer and listened to clerics denounce the Status of Forces Agreement." Reuters photos (such as here) include a caption that notes "Iraqi forces shut streets in Baghdad". Xinhau notes, "Iraqi security forces cordoned off the area, blocking all the roads leading to the route of the demonstration". This Reuters photo by Mushtaq Muhammed shows Iraq soldiers frisking a young man holding a sign bearing al-Sadr's photo "before entering the rally site". This Reuters photo by Kareem Raheem shows an American flag being burned at the demonstration. Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) explains the catchy tune sung as the rally ended, "Maliki is the new Sadam."

Staying with the treaty, AP's Matthew Lee reports that mercenaries such as Dyncorp, Blackwater, Triple Canopy and KBR have been informed by the US State Dept and Pentagon that the treaty will mean "private Americans and non-Iraqi foreigners working in key roles for the United States in Iraq will lose immunity and be subjected to Iraqi law". AFP adds, "One-hundred-and-seventy-two contractors who provide armed escorts and other security measures to government officials, diplomats and NGOs have been briefed on the new rules."

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

CNN notes three Baghdad bombings with 1 person dead and four injured. Xinhua notes 2 Baghdad roadside bombings that resulted 3 deaths and nineteen people wounded. Sahar

Today the US military announced: "CAMP VICTORY, Iraq -- A Multi National Division -- Center Soldier died of non-combat related causes Nov. 20." And they announced: "A Multi National Division - North Soldier was killed in a non-combat related incident in Mosul, Iraq, Nov. 21." The announcements brought the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4204.

Bilal Hussein is the Associated Press' Pulizter winning photographer who was imprisoned (for no valid reason) for over two years by the US military. The International Press Freedom Award (Committee to Protect Journalism) has picked him and five other winners for 2008:

Bilal Hussein Associated Press photographer, Iraq Danish Karokhel and Farida Nekzad, Pajhwok Afghanistan News executives, Afghanistan Andrew Mwenda, managing editor, The Independent, Uganda, Hector Maseda Gutiérrez, imprisoned reporter, Cuba
Beatrice Mtetwa, media lawyer, Zimbabwe

Congratulations to Bilal. H. Josef Herbert (AP) notes CPJ "had been among those who had pressed for the release of AP photographer Bilal Hussein, winner of a Pulitzer Prize in 2005 for his news photography, including the fighting in Fallujah and Ramadi. . . . Steven Hurst, former AP bureau chief in Baghdad, said Hussein was taken into custody and held for more than two years without charges. 'He did nothing but his job as a photographer in a war zone,' said Hurst, adding that the military evidently 'didn't like the story that was being told by his pictures'." Information about Bilal and his false imprisonment can be found at the Free Bilal Hussein Now! website.

In other news, Mickey Z' (at Information Clearing House) prepares for the immediate future:

No, I don't mean that Great Depression. I'm talking about the inevitable moment -- maybe next week, maybe next year -- when the Kool Aid wears off and the Obamatrons wake up to realize their hero offers nothing even approximating hope or change. The carefully calculated speeches -- which have always been filled with empty, hollow phrases -- will no longer soothe a battered and desperate populace and the Obamabots will suddenly recognize that the Pope of Hope has never been anything more than a human marketing strategy, a product. This year's iPhone. "Yes we can"? Merely the first three words of a longer phrase: "Yes we can continue to work, consume, and obey authority without question."


In election news, December sixth, Louisiana's second district elects someone to the US House. Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) notes this article on candidate Malik Rehim's recent award and click here for a message from Malik.

Public broadcasting notes. First up NOW on PBS this week looks at the role of credit ratings agencies in the economic meltdown. The program begins airing tonight on most PBS stations, check local listings, as does Washington Week which finds Gwen sitting down with four including the New York Times' Helene Cooper, Ceci Connolly (Washington Post) and NBC's Pete Williams. Staying with TV but turning to commercial TV, CBS' 60 Minutes offers Scott Pelly examing an assualt "on a facility containing weapons-grade uranium," Bob Simon on foreign widows of US citizens being ordered to leave "because their husbands died" and Lesley Stahl reports on Rex Lewis-Clack ("a musical savant born blind and mentally impaired who, at 13 years old now, is making remarkable strides despite doctors' prediction."

Public broadcasting heads up radio. WBAI Sunday, Monday and Wednesday:Sunday, November 16, 11am-noonTHE NEXT HOURAndrew Andrew prove two opinions more mindbending than one.Monday, November 24, 2-3pmCat Radio CafeAuthor/editor Nelson W. Aldrich, Jr. on "George, Being George," anoral history of literary legend George Plimpton; novelist Arthur Nerseianon "The Sacrficial Circumcision of the Bronx," second of TheFive Books of Moses series based on urban terrorist Robert Moses;andJordan Roth of Jujamcyn Theatres announces Givenik.com, a new wayto get discounted theatre tickets while saving the world. Hosted by Janet Colemanand David Dozer.Wednesday, November 26, 2-3pmCCCP: THE MONTHLY LAUGHING NIGHTMARESatire with brand new boxing gloves for the new guys and more groundglass for the old guys. With transition team Janet Coleman, DavidDozer, John McDonagh, Marc Kehoe, Scooter, Moogy Klingman, PaulFischer, The Capitol Steps, Prince Fari and the great Will Durst.Broadcasting at WBAI/NY 99.5 FMStreaming live at WBAIArchived at Cat Radio Cafe

iraqthe new york timescampbell robertsonstephen farrellamerican freedom campaign
the los angeles timestina susman
gina chonthe wall street journal
deborah haynes
bilal hussein
60 minutescbs newswbaicat radio cafejanet colemandavid dozerwashington weekhelene coopernow on pbspbs

Does this sound right to you?
Next week, the Iraqi Parliament is expected to vote on whether to approve an agreement setting the terms of the ongoing military relationship between the United States and Iraq. So far, so good. A legislative body, representing the people of a nation, shall determine the extent to which that nation's future will be intertwined with that of another.
Of course, one would expect that the United States Congress would be given the same opportunity. That, however, is not the case. Or at least it is not what the Bush administration is allowing to happen. Shockingly, the Bush administration is not even letting Congress read the full agreement before it is signed!
We need you to send a message immediately to U.S. House and Senate leaders, urging them to demand the constitutional input and approval to which they are entitled.
The administration has asserted that the agreement between the U.S. and Iraq is merely a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and therefore does not require congressional approval. Yet the agreement goes far beyond the traditional limits of a SOFA, which typically set the terms for bringing materials and equipment into a nation and outline the legal procedures that will apply to members of the military who are accused of crimes.
Believe it or not, the current agreement contains terms that will actually give Iraq a measure of control over U.S. forces. No foreign nation or international entity has ever been given the authority to direct U.S. forces without prior congressional approval - either through a majority vote of both chambers or a two-thirds vote in the Senate in the case of treaties.
If this agreement goes into effect without congressional approval, it will establish a precedent under which future presidents can exercise broad unilateral control over the U.S. military - and even give foreign nations control over our troops.
Congress must take immediate action. Unfortunately, they are about to adjourn for at least a couple of weeks. But it is not too late for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make a statement, signaling their strong belief that Congress will not be bound by and need not fund an agreement that has not been approved by Congress.
Please send an E-mail encouraging such action to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid immediately by clicking on the following link:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2165/t/1027/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26268
This is truly a dire situation and we hope that you will join us in calling for action.
Thank you.
Steve Fox
Campaign Director
American Freedom Campaign Action Fund
Click here to unsubscribe.

kendrick e-mailed me to forward the above. kendrick wrote: ' this morning and this afternoon, c.i. raises the roof online and at least 1 organization heard the noise. this hit my inbox at 6:26 tonight. i'm not a fan of the group anymore after naomi wolf went completely nuts, but thought you might be interested.' i am (and kendrick gave permission for his e-mail to be quoted). like kendrick, i no longer care for the organization (due to wolf's theatratics) but c.i. has been raising the roof and sending up flares so i will note it and i will make it the opening.

the treaty doesn't need to go through and i'm with representative bill delahunt on this. i think that instead of allowing the outgoing white house to force through a treaty, the united nations' mandate gets renewed for 6 months and the incoming white house makes whatever treaty it wants to.

but regardless, the treaty needs approval by congress and who does bully boy think he is yet again circumventing congress? and who do we think we are that we will stand for it?

we need to send a message that we are no 1's carpet, that we will not be stepped on yet again by the bully boy in his final weeks in office. we need to demand that our congress stand up and fight back.

so, no matter what you may think of naomi wolf, please consider using the links above to make your voice heard.

i agree, she was a stupid, stupid idiot and came off highly sexist and anti-feminist. i have no use for her. but, if you're able to, ignore her and focus on the issue.

think about c.i. she went to the hearing yesterday. she covered it at length in yesterday's snapshot. she has been calling out this treaty for how long? how many days have we read 'turning to the treaty masquerading as a sofa'? she has owned this issue and we all are ahead of the curve because of her. so forget naomi wolf and use the links for c.i. use the links for the iraqi people. use the links for democracy. use the links for the constitution.

there are many, many reasons to use the links above.

and think about how using the links proves you were right and naomi wolf was a stupid, stupid idiot.

how so?

you knew barack was full of s**t.

the fact that he is now the incoming president and naomi wolf's group is having to launch an e-mail campaign to get democrats to stand up proves how pathetic brack is.

if barack was anything he was supposed to be, the washington post wouldn't have done their article this week on how barack was caving on insisting the constitution be followed on the treaty.

we were right. naomi wolf was a fool.

we were right and we have to again be the grown ups and roll our sleaves up to get the work done. we're not hopey-dopeys pretending magic words change the world. that's why we supported candidates other than barack - in the dem primary, in the general election.

that's why so many of us supported ralph nader. because he was the real deal.


let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Thursday, November 20, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Congress explores the treaty Wednesday and the press plays dumb on Thursday, and more.

An important Congressional hearing took place yesterday. The same press that sold the illegal war worked overtime to ignore the hearing. Let's start with the new romantic drama/comedy hour, The Unnamed Source Whisperer. Yes, there's Nancy A. Youssef embarrassing the hell out of herself. Not McClatchy -- it has embarrassed itself for some time now. So The Unnamed Source Whisperer Youssef can hog all the shame. Wallow in it, Nancy, it's all yours. She offers a 'backstory' on the treaty with about as much grounding in truth as a seventies Rolling Stone profile of Linda Ronstadt (those pieces pissed off Linda for good reason). About as much truth and about as much 'news'. The 18th of November, Youssef's colleague Leila Fadel made a fool out of herself as well. Her opening sentence underscored she knew how to clear a room: "The status of forces of agreement between the United States and Iraq is now called the withdrawal agreement, and that's exactly what it is: an ultimate end to the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq." Is that what it is exactly, Leila?

Is that what passes for reporting at the increasing crap-fest known as McClatchy? That sentence sounds a lot like an editorial or a column or a blog post. It does not sound like reporting. And it's not factual. It wasn't when Fadel wrote it and it certainly IS NOT FACTUAL after yesterday's Congressional hearing when it was learned that the English version and the Arabic version are not on the same page and the Arabic version gives the impression that more is promised. So where's the corrective? Probably never coming. Fadel's 'reporting' was asinine upon delivery. But it got waived through.
From American Friends Service Committee's translation of the Arabic version (which, remember, is different than the English version that the White House refuses to publicly release -- and this morning the State Dept's Sean McCormick referred questions of its release to the American people back to the White House, FYI):

Article Thirty
Contract Validity
1 - This agreement is valid for three years unless it is terminated earlier by either parties in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article.
[. . .]
3 - Cancellation of this agreement requires a written notice provided one year in advance.

That third section, does no one understand contract law? What you have is a one-year agreement with two options for renewal (it's automatically renewed if no one cancels). It's a one-year contract. Were a performer to sign it, he or she would be signing a one year contract with two pick-up options. This isn't a three-year contract at all. And since either side can cancel it at any point with only a year's heads up, what it says will happen in 2011 really doesn't matter. All that really matters is what it says for 2009 because that's the only period that both sides are bound to. This isn't some deep, obscure psuedo-science. It's basic contract law. It is a one-year contract covering only 2009. After 2009, it can be renewed for 2010 just by not announcing an intent to depart from the contract and, if it is renewed, it can run through 2011 in the same manner. But this is not a three-year contract. [Community members, if this is at all complicated or confusing, e-mail and we'll go over it tonight and use a concrete example I almost included here yesterday and today but thought it would make it too 'chatty.' It will explain a one-year contract and options for renewal.]

While we're on Article 30, the second clause wasn't raised in Congress yesterday but should have been: "This agreement cannot be modified without an official written approval of both sides and in accordance to constitutional procedures in both countries." That clause appears to argue that an alteration in this treaty (that they work so hard to avoid calling a treaty) would have to go through both country's legislative bodies. The US Constitution makes no mention of the 'powers' the White House is attempting to self-create; however, it does explain Congressional approval of treaties.

If you really want to despair over how wretched today's media is, take a moment to grasp that the US government propaganda channel Voice Of America did a better job of reporting on the hearing than did the New York Times, McClatchy Newspapers, CBS News, ABC, the Los Angeles Times, et al. That's in part because VOA's Dan Robinson actually reported on it -- that alone put him far ahead the rest of the losers. Here's Robinson (text and audio):

However, many U.S. lawmakers have been angry with what they view as a secretive process in which the Bush administration undertook very little if any consultation with Congress.
These feelings were evident in a public hearing of a House foreign affairs subcommittee, where Democratic Representative William Delahunt voiced his frustration.
"There has been no meaningful consultation with Congress during the negotiation of this agreement and the American people for all intents and purposes have been completely left out."
Delahunt referred to a request from the National Security Council that the text of the agreement not be released publicly, and be withheld from witnesses at the hearing.
Oona Hathaway, Professor Law at the University of California at Berkeley calls the lack of consultation with Congress unprecedented, asserting that aspects of the accord exceed the independent constitutional powers of the president.
Among troublesome provisions she points to is one involving a joint U.S.-Iraqi coordinating committee that she suggests would require U.S. commanders to seek permission to engage in military activities other than self-defense.
"The provisions granting authority to U.S. troops to engage in military operations, the grant of power over our military operations to this joint committee, and the specification of timetables for withdrawal of military forces," Hathaway said. "These are unprecedented in a standard SOFA [Status of Forces Agreement] have never been part of a standard SOFA, and extend in my view far beyond what the president can do without obtaining congressional approval."

The best report filed is by Jenny Paul with the Boston Globe and she's the only one with a major daily to file on the hearing. Raed Jarrar testimony is noted by Paul:

Jarrar told the House subcommittee a simple-majority approval of the pact could proke unrest and violence in Iraq.
"Most of the groups who are opposing it in the parliament, have been saying, 'If you wanted to go through some loopholes -- not send it to Parliament or pass it through a simple majority -- we will quit this political process as a whole, and we will go back to armed resistance,' " he said.

Jarrar got shortchanged (by me) in yesterday's snapshot due to time running out while I was dictating the snapshot. We focused on Professor Oona A. Hathaway of UC Berkeley's School of Law because she addressed what the treaty wasn't (it's not a SOFA, Leila) and the illegal nature of it boiling it down to three main points.

1) "The agreement in my view threatens to undermine the Constitutional powers of President-elect Obama as commander-in-chief and it does so in two ways.

a) So first this agreement gives operational control to a Joint Military Operations Coordination Committee which is made up of Iraqis and Americans and is jointly led by both sides according to the agreement."

b) "The proposed agreement also undermines the Constitutional powers of President-elect Obama as commander in chief by binding him to observe specific timetables that are outlined in the agreement for the withdrawal of US troops."

2) "The conclusion of this agreement without any Congressional involvement is unprecedented and, in my view, unconstitutional."

3) "If the administration proceeds as planned the war will likely become illegal under United States law when the UN mandate expires on December 31st."

Somehow that wasn't important enough to get included in any of Nancy and The Unnnamed Source Whisperers' 'reporting' today.

Lazy and bad reporters as well as professional liars posing as reporters are doing TREMENDOUS DAMAGE. They are selling the treaty as an end to the illegal war when it is no such thing. And where's Panhandle Media? Amy Goodman finally got around today to noting Lord Thomas Bingham's speech (see Tuesday's snapshot, and the speech was given Monday). The Nation? If they've got a word on it (even one of their useless ones), it's not to be found on their main page. As usual the alleged 'independent' media can't be counted on to do anything but offer their breathless Barack Fan Club bulletins, every hour on the hour.
The MSM is repeatedly lying (with very few exceptions) and stating that the treaty means withdrawal. Might some of our so-called 'independent' media spare a second or two to evaluate that claim? If the Iraqi Parliament can stall for ten days, the White House will be forced to seriously explore extending the United Nations' Security Council mandate. As Raed Jarrar explained to Congress yesterday, there is about to be a month-long break. (Gina Chon says the break is scheduled to start "Nov. 25, but that could be delayed"). The UN mandate expires December 31st. This issue isn't one that 'independent' media can pick up after the fact in January without embarrassing itself. By January, it will be over. They either cover it now while it matters or they admit they're not a news media, just a fan service for Barack and start mailing autographed glossies to all who contribute.

Hathaway explained at length to Congress yesterday how the treaty was harmful to the incoming president so you'd think the Barack Boosters would be alarmed if only for that reason and rush to cover the treaty. There is a tiny of window of opportunity to stop the treaty and 'independent' media's not doing a damn thing. Not that the 'anti-war' groups are doing a damn thing either. The laughable United for Peace & Justice AND MONEY is still stroking itself with statements on Barack Obama's election win maintaint that their "consistent work . . . helped lay the foundation for the Obama campaign's success." Remember that for their movement tombstone four years on down the line.

American Friends Service Committee may be the only organization aware of the treaty. And they make their translation the top link on their home page. Campbell Robertson and Suadad al-Salhy (New York Times) report on Wednesday's Parliament session when the treaty was being read of the second day in a row: "For the next two hours, the Paliament speaker, Mahomoud Mashhadanai, lashed out at the objectors and refused their demands to change the Parliament agenda. He then invited Hassan al-Sneid, a Shiite lawmaker, to begin the second public readng of the agreement, a matter of parliamentary procuedure. As Mr. Sneid began reading, withensses said, Sadrists and other opponents of the agreement continued to trade shouts with lawmakers who supported it. Then, Ahmed Masu'udi, a Sadrist lawmaker, approached the dais. Mr. Masu'udi said later in an interview that he was simply trying to reach Mr. Mashhadani to persuade him to stop the reading: several other witnesses said Mr. Massu'udi tried to attack Mr. Sneid." Saif Rasheed and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) add: "Lawmakers from three other political blocs joined the Sadr loyalists in condemning what they called bullying by bodyguards inside parliament, and they pledged to boycott further sessions. The groups don't have enough combined seats to prevent a quorom in the 275-seat legislature, assuming enough lawmakers showed up, but their action will deny Prime Minister Nouri Maliki the broad-based backing he needs to avoid deepening rifts that have hobbled efforts at reconciliation." Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) explains, "Cabinet members, including foreign minister and finance minister, were scheduled to speak before parliament to lobby for the deal. Instead, the session ended abruptly after a shoving match between a lawmaker and security guards." NPR's Ivan Watson (All Things Considered) notes that the TV feed of the session cut away: "The last thing viewers saw Wednesday was a lawmaker from Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's faction denouncing the agreement. Sadr has opposed the security pact almost from the beginning. As his uspporter addressed parliament, the audio and video feed abruptly dropped out, and seconds later, state TV resumed regular programming with an unrelated news broadcast. Meanwhile, off-camera, uniformed Iraqi guards raced through the parliament building, locking doors and barring lawmakers and journalists from leaving. Rumors quickly spread that a fight had broken out inside the assembly hall." At the New York Times' blog Baghdad Bureau, Stephen Farrell writes an intro to a collection of past reports by the paper on Iraq and treaties starting with October 12, 1922's "BRITISH CONCLUDE ALLIANCE WITH IRAK" and running through January 21, 1948's "8 DIE, 140 HURT IN IRAQ IN PROTEST OVER PACT" (which is actually an Associated Press report, not a report by the paper) -- all reports can be read in full and are in PDF format.

AP reports (today) that Hezbollah is calling on Iraq's MPs "to reject" the treaty. Naharnet Newsdesk notes, "Hizbullah on Thursday called on Iraqi parliament members to reject the security pact with the United States saying, 'It touches on Iraq's future and sovereignty, population unity, it legitimizes U.S. presence in Iraq and ushers dangers." Bobby Ghosh (Time magazine) reports that the puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, is "alarmed that the agreement . . . was about to unravel" so he held a press conference: "Hoping, perhaps, to frighten his opponents into their senses, he painted a grim picture of what would happen if the SOFA isn't ratified. Iraq, he said, would have to ask the United Nations to renew the mandate that allows the U.S. military to occupy the country, and that would mean Iraq's security would remain in American hands. That, Maliki said, would leave tens of thousands of Iraqi detainees in U.S.-run prisons, he said -- a not-so-subtle hint to Sunnis and Sadrists, who complain that many of their supporters are unfairly detained. And U.S. soldiers and contractors would remain immune from Iraqi law, a fact that angers Iraqis of all political stripes. What's more, the Prime Minister said, the Americans would remain in control of Iraqi airspeace, 'and they will have the right to cancel even my flights'."

Scary puppet! And lying puppet. First off, airspace? As the Iraqi military revealed last month in a press conference, they won't be able to take to the air until 2011 at the earliest. And the treaty being proposed gives the US control of the airspace. Prosecuting US soldiers? They're not allowed to do that in the current treaty anyway. It walks it to the edge but the US remains in control. (And they grasped that at one point and were insisting that there be something in writing about who would be the deciding body to adjudicate disputes when the Iraqi and the US couldn't agree whether or not a US soldier should be tried by Iraqi courts.) The bulk of the other things al-Maliki's raising aren't conditional either and could easily be dealt with by renewing the UN mandate not under Chapter 7 but under Chapter 6 or -- under 6 or 7 -- takcing on amendments (which Hoshyar Zebari has publicly stated he feels would make the US use their Security Council veto to kill the UN mandate). Ayad Allawi favors extension under Chapter 6. These and other important points are documented in a memo the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs compiled that's available online in PDF format here or here for non-PDF format. AP notes that the Parliament is scheduled to vote Monday. Meanwhile the Kurdish Globe reports Parliament's Kurdistan Coalition spokesperson Firyad Rwandizi is boasting of what the Kurds secured in the treaty, "The American side agreed on adding amendments demanded by the Kurds to be inserted within the agreement. It commits the American government to defend the federalism system currently in Iraq and to prohibit any attempts to violate federalism by some political sides." The Globe also highlights Peter Galbraith's November 12th NPR interview where he calls for Iraq to be divided: "We have, in the north Kurdistan, which is, in all regards, an independent country, with its own army and its own government. And now between the Shiites and the Sunnis there are two separate armies -- there's a Shiite army -- it's the Iraqi army, but it's dominated by the Shiites -- and in the Sunni areas there's now the Awakening -- a 100,000-man strong militia. And it is because of the Awakening, and not so much the surge of U.S. troops, that there's been this decline in attacks by al-Qaida." We? We have? We have nothing. Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people and Galbraith has schilled for the Kurdish government for sometime. Equally true is that the Kurds are attempting to expand their region in nothern Iraq and that's a continued source of tension and violence so it's not quite as fairy land as Galbraith would prefer to imagine it.

The Kurdish region is where the PKK launches attacks on Turkey from and where Turkey air bombs Iraq. Yesterday there was a Baghdad meet-up. Xinhua reports Ali Babacan, Foreign Minister of Turkey has called the meet-up "very important and fruitful." And they note the ministry's spokesperson Burak Ozugergin declared "that Turkey attached great importance to the territorial integrity and political unity of Iraq." Hurriyet notes that the meet-up led to the US, Turkey and Iraq deciding "to establish a permanent commission in Baghdad . . . to fight the terror organization . . . PKK" which "signals an important shift in Ankara's policy."
Meanwhile Iraq's Foreign Ministry continues its busy week. Already having thrown a Baghdad reception for Martin Eshbakher, Switzerland's Ambassador to Iraq, received Sweden's Minister of Trade, Ewa Bjorling and Iran's Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi, the Foreign Ministry notes that today the department's Minister Hoshyar Zebari met in Baghdad with Italy's Foreign minister Franco Frattini and they discussed "the scientific, healty, trade cooperation between both countries, as well as the agreements which both countries want to hold those agreements together" and that Frattini was supposed to follow his meeting by visiting "the Iraqi museum, then he will meet His Excellency the Iraqi president Jalal Talabani, and Prime Minister, Nouri Al Maliki, as well as a number of the political characters of the Iraqi government." ANSA notes that Frattini conveyed Italy's position regarding the need to protect Iraqi Christians in his meeting with al-Maliki who stated, "It's not a concession but a duty for Iraq to defend Christians who were the first to arrive in this country" and that Frattini also received assurances from Zebari that Iraq's Christian population was being protected from attacks. AGI notes that Frattini also conveyed that "Italy strongly backs . . . the so-called 'Sofa'."

Bombings?

Reuters notes a Baghdad car bombing that left three "presidential guards" injured

Shootings?

Reuters notes an armed clash outside Dour that claimed 6 lives and left three more people injured and, dropping back to yesterday, a home invasion in Kut that resulted in 5 members of one family being killed.

Corpses?

Reuters notes 5 corpses discovered in Mosul and 1 corpse discovered in Shwan.

Today the US military announced: "CAMP FALLUJAH, IRAQ -- A Multi-National Force -- West Marine died as the result of a non-combat related incident here Nov. 19."


iraqjenny paulthe boston globethe new york timescampbell robertsonthe los angeles timestina susman
gina chonthe wall street journal

sherry e-mailed me a link to a thing called gender analyzer. you go here and put in the address of a website and it will determine if the person is male or female.

so i put in myself.

and here's what i get:

We think http://sexandpoliticsandscreedsandattitude.blogspot.com/ is written by a man (70%).

wtf! so i play with it and do all the sites in the community.


Trina of Trina's Kitchen

We think http://trinaskitchen.blogspot.com/ is written by a man (66%).

so not only am i masculine, i'm more masculine than trina?


Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,

We think http://thomasfriedmanisagreatman.blogspot.com/ is written by a man (71%).

betty, 1% more masculine than me! i would hug you if you were here!

Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),

We think http://katskornerofthecommonills.blogspot.com/ is written by a man (73%).

what? you're probably wondering how the men rank, right?

Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,

We think http://cedricsbigmix.blogspot.com/ is written by a man (73%).

you need to remember cedric's score. i was on the phone with c.i. briefly tonight and the 1st thing she said when i told her my score and how i'd done every 1 was, 'what's cedric's score, what's wally's score?'

Mike of Mikey Likes It!,

We think http://wwwmikeylikesit.blogspot.com/ is written by a man (72%).

i knew we women would laugh it off but i did check with the guys before posting because i didn't want any bruised egos. mike said cedric (and any 1 else) can score 'more manly' and it doesn't matter 'cause i got the biggest cock.' he probably does. he has a huge 1. as c.i. and i discovered when we were speaking to elaine 1 morning and mike was asleep except below the waist. (this was in d.c. when we were trying to get every 1 up and headed to the airport.)

Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,

We think http://likemariasaidpaz.blogspot.com/ is written by a man (78%).

yes, elaine is more manly than her lover mike! he laughed at that. (as did she.)

Ruth of Ruth's Report,

We think http://ruthsreport.blogspot.com/ is written by a man (80%).

and ruth is the manly of all the ladies! (she said, 'well i guess it's having gone through the change so many years ago.') remember c.i. zoomed in on cedric and wally?


Wally of The Daily Jot,

We think http://thedailyjot.blogspot.com/ is written by a man (74%).

right there you know the 'instrument' is garbage. cedric & wally do joint-posts. their scores should be the exact same. (wally is 1% higher.)

Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ

We think http://sickofitradlz.blogspot.com/ is written by a man (73%).

thank you marcia for being more masculine than me! and, if you're wondering, no 1 scored as a woman - none of us, male or female. who was the manliest of the men?

and Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends.

We think http://ohboyitneverends.blogspot.com/ is written by a man (80%).

stan said he was surprised and noted he'd heard of mike's 'foot long' so he was really surprised he came out ahead of mike.

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava,

We think http://thirdestatesundayreview.blogspot.com/ is written by a man (66%).

now we all work on that and somehow it was the lowest score of our masculinity.

lastly, C.I. of The Common Ills

We think http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/ is written by a man (80%).

c.i. told me they were not measuring gender, that they were so sexual bias for knowledge, topics and other things. she suggested i run marjorie cohn's website through the instrument.

We think http://www.marjoriecohn.com/ is written by a man (81%).

that would seem to back up c.i.

i figured i'd also run through susan of random notes and deliah of a scrivner's lament (and may use delilah for my title).

susan, i know you're a teacher and that you were in the press not that long ago (that's really true, susan posted on it at her site) but you are not fooling any 1!

We have strong indicators that http://snunes.blogspot.com/ is written by a man (93%).

(i hope it's already clear that i think the instrument is bunk. susan is a woman.)

We guess http://ascrivenerslament.blogspot.com/ is written by a woman (52%), however it's quite gender neutral.

delilah, you're gender neutral! delilah, you're in some david bowie, early 70s phase! you gender bender! what was the brit rock group? was it t-rex? i think so. marc bolan, right?

so it's just nonsense.

but it was interesting for about 3 minutes and i figured i'd make it into a post.

sherry's e-mail cut off but she was doing some other measurement for the community sites. c.i.'s in the e-mail and i'm 1/2 in. i'll copy and paste what sherry found by plugging c.i. into 1 of those machines and sherry e-mail me about what machine it was and i'll do this tomorrow night too.

The analysis indicates that the author of http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/ is of the type:
INTP - The Thinkers

The logical and analytical type. They are especialy attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications. They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.



let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Wednesday, November 19, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Turkey meets with Iraq over PKK (US tags along), the US Congress explores the treaty, and more.

"This is the eighth in a series of hearings which the Subcommittee has held on the Bush administration's efforts to consummate what was initially described as a long-term security agreement with the government of Iraq," declared US House Rep Bill Delahunt as he brought the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs to order today. The topic was the treaty the White House is trying to make with their puppets in Iraq. Delahunt noted he shared "the concerns expressed by the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, our friend and colleague Ike Skelton, who has been quoted as being 'deeply troubled' because the agreement contains, as he says, 'vague language that will cause misunderstandings and conflict between the United States and Iraq in the future'."

Rep Bill Delahunt: And by the way, no one should forget that this agreement has just been provided to Congress -- and that there has been no time to conduct the analysis required by such a significant document -- one that purports to end a conflict that has had such momentous and tragic consequences for both the Iraqi and the American people. And remember there has been no meaningful consultation with Congress during the negotiation of this agreement. And the American people, for all intents and purposes, have been kept completely left out. Even now the National Security Council has requested that we do not show this document to our witnesses or release it to the public -- a public that for over five years has paid so dearly with blood and treasure. Now I find that incredible. Meantime, the Iraqi government has posted this document on its media website so that anybody who can read Arabic can take part in the public discourse. But this is typical of the Bush administration and its unhealthy and undemocratic obsession with secrecy.

Delahunt went on to outline three things that had to take place for the treaty to be legal:

1) The Iraqi Parliament enacts by a two-thirds majority -- 184 of its 275 members -- a law governing the ratification of international agreements.

2) The Iraqi Parliament then enacts the proposed bilateral security agreement under that ratification law -- which as introduced this past Monday in their Parliament also would require a two-thirds vote of approval, and

3) The United States Congress enacts a law that approves and implements the security agreement -- and authorizes offensive combat operations by US forces.

Oona A. Hathaway, Raed Jarrar, Michael Matheson, Issam Michael Saliba AEI's Thomas Donnelly offered testimony to the committee.

One issue that arose was the possibility of extending the United Nations Security Council mandate (the mandate expires December 31st). Jarrar explained that there had been resistance in the past to extending the mandate; however, today it is seen by proponents in Iraq "as the lesser of two evils, but not as a strategic goal. Many Iraqi groups in the Parliament think it is better to give the Parliament more time to debate the agreement rather than just rushing it within the next few weeks." Matheson, professor at George Washington University Law School, also spoke of the mandate and noted that a UN mandate could take place under Chapter 7 (as has been done) or under Chapter 6. Saliba is a Senior Foreign Law Specialist with the Law Library of Congress and his focus was the approval mechanism in the Parliament which eh found to require support of two-thirds of the MPs ("it is logical to conclude that the ratification of an agreement negotiated by the Iraqi government needs a two-thirds majority of all members of Parliament for its ratification").

"I will focus my remarks on what I believe are the three most pressing legal issues regarding the proposed bilateral agreement with Iraq," declared Professor Oona Hathaway of UC Berkeley's School of Law in her opening statements. "There are, of course, many others I'm happy to talk about. And then I'll conclude by outlining what I think are the possible ways for addressing these concerns."


1) "The agreement in my view threatens to undermine the Constitutional powers of President-elect Obama as commander-in-chief and it does so in two ways.
a) So first this agreement gives operational control to a Joint Military Operations Coordination Committee which is made up of Iraqis and Americans and is jointly led by both sides according to the agreement."

The concern of Hathaway is that before US commanders could engage in military operations in the field they would have to receive approval from the JMOCC with only an exception for self-defense. Hathaway noted this was unprecedented and that US command control has never been handed out over to foreign powers other than a very narrow peace keeping situation approved by the Congress.

b) "The proposed agreement also undermines the Constitutional powers of President-elect Obama as commander in chief by binding him to observe specific timetables that are outlined in the agreement for the withdrawal of US troops."

Oona Hathaway: Here the specifics of the timetables are fairly clear, it's sixteen months for withdrawal from the cities, towns and villages and three years withdrawal from Iraq. What is uncertain is what President-elect Obama would have to do if he wanted to withdraw early. There are two different texts that we are working with. One is a translation of the Arabic language text which has been -- as Chairman Delahunt said -- made available by the Iraqi government. That text says the following, it says, "The United States recognizes Iraq's sovereign right to request a US forces withdrawal from Iraq at any time. The Iraqi government recognizes the United States' sovereign right to request a United States forces withdrawal from Iraq at any time." So the language here seems to me suggest the United States can request the right to withdrawal but cannot simply withdraw early. And if that is in fact what the agreement says then that creates serious concerns because, of course, President-elect Obama campaigned on a promise of withdrawing forces much earlier than three years and this would seem to require him to get the approval of the Iraqi government in order to actually carry out that promise. Now the English language version which I just received last night states what seems to be quite different, it states the following, "The government of Iraq recognizes the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw the United States forces from Iraq at any time." So there is -- that seems to give much more leeway to the president to withdraw troops earlier though, of course, if conditions on the ground turn out to make it difficult or impossible or unsafe to withdraw troops earlier than three years he would have to obtain the approval of the Iraqi government in order to keep troops in the country longer. In any case, this raises obvious concerns about which of these texts we should be believing and whether they in fact say the same thing. But the basic concern I have here is that this agreement commits the president to abide by timetables that he has had no role in shaping and may even make it more difficult for him to meet his campaign promise of bringing troops home within sixteen to eighteen months.

2) "The conclusion of this agreement without any Congressional involvement is unprecedented and, in my view, unconstitutional."

Oona Hathaway: So presidents can enter into agreements on their own -- they're called Sole Executive Agreements. But these agreements must be within the president's own independent powers. This agreement goes far beyond the president's own independent, Constitutional powers in several ways. Now the administration has responded to this critique in the past by saying, "This is simply a Status Of Forces Agreement -- a SOFA. We've got hundreds -- we've got more than a hundred of these around the world. All of these have been concluded as Sole Executive Agreements entered by the president by himself. So what are you so concerned about?" And the answer is: This is not a SOFA. This is, in fact, a much more comprehensive agreement than any Status of Forces Agreement that is out there and includes a variety of provisions that, as far as I'm aware -- and I've read about sixty to eighty of these agreements, that have never been a part of any Status Of Forces Agreement. In particular the provisions granting authority to US troops to engage in military operations, the grant of power over military operations to this joint committee that I mentioned earlier and the specification of timetables for withdrawal of military forces. These are unprecedented in a standard Status Of Forces Agreement, have never been part of a standard Status Of Forces Agreement and extend, in my view, far beyond what the the President can do without obtaining Congressional approval. The administration has also suggested that the agreement doesn't really grant the authority to fight and therefore it does not need to be approved by Congress. In my view that is manifestly incorrect. This agreement is -- the entire purpose is to grant the authority to fight. It is meant to replace the UN mandate. The UN mandate is the authority under which US troops are currently present in Iraq and the entire reason for the proposal of the agreement at this time is because that mandate is about to expire and when it does there will no longer be a legal authority for the United States troops to be present in Iraq. This agreement gives in fact gives that authority to fight to replace the UN mandate. So to suggest that it doesn't do that and therefore need not be approved by Congress clearly is not correct.

3) "If the administration proceeds as planned the war will likely become illegal under United States law when the UN mandate expires on December 31st."

Oona Hathaway: At present, domestic legal authority for the war in Iraq is based on House Joint Resolution 114 which was passed in October of 2002. The resolution authorizes the president to use the armed forces for two purposes. One, to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and two to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. And let me take the second first. The second is, in my view, what is currently operative at this moment. There is a Security Council resolution in effect that is currently governing the presence of US troops and, therefore, it is the case that, in fact, we are -- that the president may enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq as long as that resolution is in effect this domestic legal authority is also in effect. But when the mandate expires at the end of the year -- as it is due to expire -- that no longer, that legal basis for the war in Iraq no longer exists. So then we're left with the first part of the authorization: To defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. Now this was enacted, remember, in 2002 when Saddam Hussein was in power and we were hearing about threats of Weapons of Mass Destruction. And so it was clear what the threat posed by Iraq was, it was posed by the government of Iraq. Of course, that government has changed and those same threats to the United States do not exist. And, in fact, the bilateral agreement with Iraq recognizes this change. That agreement itself states that, "The danger posed to international peace and stability by the former Iraqi government is now gone." So this agreement, to my mind, says what we all know to be true which is that the threat that this resolution was meant to address has been resolved and there no longer is this threat by the government of Iraq against the United States. So once this mandate expires at the end of the year -- if it is not renewed -- then legal authority for the war in Iraq as a matter of United States' law no longer exists. So what do we do? And this is where I am going to end. There are, in my view, two legal options available. The first, as Chairman Delahunt mentioned, is renewal of the UN mandate. A simple renewal of the mandate for six months would address all these problems. It would give legal authority as a matter of international law for US troops to be present but it would also extend authority as a matter of US law because the resolution that I just mentioned clearly incorporates any future Security Council resolutions and extensions of those resolutions. So that is a very real and I think one of the best options available. There's' a second possible option as well which is submitting this agreement to Congress for approval. If Congress were to approve this agreement then all these concerns would also be addressed, then this would no longer be a Sole Executive Agreement and the Congress would have had a chance to address, consider and respond to the concerns that might be raised about the substance of the agreement and if it chooses to approve the agreement, these Constitutional and legal concerns that I've raised would be addressed.

During questioning, US House Rep Lynn Woolsey noted "It is clear to me that there are many interpretations of what this treaty/agreement is." It would be wise for those in the press who continue to miss that point to pause and consider that. We'll focus on this section of the hearing between Woolsey and Hathaway.

Rep Lynn Woolsey: What is the legal standing? Will an agreement/treaty be -- have standing if it does not come before the House of Representatives of the Congress in general?

Oona Hathaway: Well this is a complicated question as you might imagine. In my view it would be unconstitutional because it would extend beyond the president's power to conclude an agreement under his own independent powers and for all the reasons we've discussed it clearly goes beyond those limits. The question is: How would you challenge it? How would you demonstrate that? One possibility, obviously, is a resolution in Congress, another is a challenge in the courts -- that's unlikely to succeed. So the likely result would be that we would be operating under an unconstitutional agreement and what worries me is not only that -- although that is quite worrisome in and of itself -- but the precedent that that sets. So we then set a precedent that the president can enter into an agreement to commit US troops without having to get the assent of Congress. And, moreover, that the limits that we all thought applied to Sole Executive Agreements, the limits that had been observed by presidents for a generation on agreements that are entered into by presidents on their own no longer apply. All bets are off. So could President Obama enter Kyoto on his own? Could he enter the Law of the Sea Treaty on his own? If we don't know what the limits are, it creates real questions about where those -- where the Constitutional limits are? If they're not going to be observed then that creates problems not just in this instance but in every future case as well.

Rep Lynn Woolsey: So how do you think we can untangle this mess?

Oona Hathaway: My view is I think that this legislation is very positive. I think that, if in fact something like that were to pass demanding that Congress approve the agreement, I think that could have a significant effect. As I said, that would address all the questions that I've raised about the procedural issues. Congress could work out the substantive concerns if it had any about the agreement. But if this agreement were approved by Congress -- and there's nothing that would stop the president, I should say, from simply submitting this agreement as it is for approval as what's called an ex post congressional-executive agreement. That is a legal procedure that is available to the president and then this Congress would be able to pass that through majority votes in both houses and then it would become a legal agreement with the seal of approval of Congress and would be federal law and address all the concerns that I've raised. So that, to my mind, is a very real and, I think, would be an extremely positive development though, sadly I'm afraid, not entirely realistic. Another possibility is, of course, a renewal of the UN mandate because that does address both the international and domestic law issues that I've raised. In effect, that kicks the ball down the road because then we still have the issue of 'then what do we do?' That mandate would only be in effect for a short period of time -- the period of time talked about is six months. You'd have to enter an agreement then. My hope would be that given the stated position of the president-elect and vice president-elect on this issue that they would not only negotiate a good agreement but would submit that to Congress for approval.

"There's something strange" Rep Howard Byrne noted that the Iraqi Parliament was expected to approve or not but the US Congress wasn't and that the Iraqi Parliament and people can see the treaty but, in the US, Congress is not allowed to release it to the American people.

We'll also note this exchange between Raed Jarrar and the subcommittee chair Bill Delahunt.

Bill Delahunt: I'm just going to ask Mr. Jarrar a question. One of the concerns that I have to go to the issue of the vote in Iraq on the so-called implementation or ratification law. I -- My reading and the statements that I've noticed from the Speaker of the Council of Representatives and the legal committee of the Iraqi Parliament are clear that a two-thirds vote is required. In your testimony, you indicated that there is now discussion about a simple majority. If in the end, there's a vote of approval by a simple majority, in your opinion, could this provoke unrest and violence in Iraq predicated on the opinion of some including elements in Iraq that are hostile to our interests. Could this provoke them to cause mischief, if you will? And provide them a rational which would be: Look, they're circumventing the law and yet they preach respect for the rule of law and democracy.

Raed Jarrar: Before I answer the question, let me just state very clearly that the Iraqi Constitutional Court has not been formed yet. So the Iraqi Constitutional Court that is supposed to deal with such questions -- now, this is just another sign of how premature this bilateral agreement is. It's falling on a very unprepared regime in Iraq that still has a lot of its basic components uncreated -- they were not created yet. Now the fact that -- the mere fact that the agreement was sent to Parliament was not sent because there is a respect of the Constitution or a following of the Iraqi law as it were. Actually it was sent by coincidence, I think, because one of the major religious leaderships in Iraq, Ayatollah Sistani insisted that the law must be sent to the Parliament. The Iraqi executive branch lobbyied for months with Ayatollah Sistani that I think has nothing to do with politics in Iraq but it seems like the Iraqi executive branch disagrees with me. They lobbyied for months that they should just sign the agreement as an executive memo rather than sending it to the Parliament. He said no. That's why they sent it to the Parliament. So there is no real respect of the Constitution or laws and this I think should create a case that if it's worrisome that maybe next year they will create the Constituional Court to look back and say this bilateral agreement with the US is void actually -- don't mean anything. And that will put everyone in a status of limbo I'm sure. And that's why many people are saying a multilateral agreement -- like the United Nations is more guaranteed for both sides. Now regarding the particular question of increased violence there is an overwhelming rejection of signing an agreement with the US regardless of its content and this is not -- we're not talking about marginal groups in the Parliament or outside the Parliament. We have major Ayatollahs, the major Ayatollahs from the Shi'ite side like Ayatollah [al- Baqdadi, Ayatollah Shirzai or Ayatollah Haeri" ?] who have given a fatawa against signing the agreement, a religious order against signing the agreement. From the Sunni side it's the same. The major mainstream Sunni leadership has given fatawas against signing the agreement. So there is rejection regardless of the content of it Inside the Parliament, this rejection can be seen in all kinds of components in the Iraq groups, whether they were Sunni, Shi'ites or seculars there is resistance to signing the agreement. Now I think Ayatollah Sistani's as a very moderate voice, actually asked for a national consensus. He said all major groups, all major political groups must agree on this.



Delahunt made his position clear during the hearing, "What we do now could very well be referred to at some future date much to our chagrin if we don't stand up and take some sort of action. My option is extend the UN mandate because that solves all of these issues. It protects our troops. It provides the authority to conduct offensive military operations."


Today Mary Beth Sheridan (Washington Post) noted:

It is not clear that all 150,000 American troops will be gone in three years. "There is a provision for an extension by agreement of both sides," a senior U.S. official said this week, speaking on the condition of anonymity. The Iraqis could decide they see a continuing role for U.S. troops, he said. "They have every right to ask us for such a presence."The role of U.S. troops in Iraqi cities after July may also be greater than the agreement implies. The details of the troops' activities would be worked out in negotiations between the Iraqi and American military, the senior official said.

Campbell Robertson (New York Times) notes that Nouri al-Maliki went on TV yesterday and insisted "there were no secret side agreements to the" treaty. He moved his lips so well, it might have seemed as though the puppet were speaking his own words on Iraqi TV.
AFP reports that (today) Moqtada al-Sadr supporters (Shi'ites) banged on the tables to drown out Hassan al-Sined today as he attempted to read the treaty outloud to the Parliament. The moment was broadcast on TV (which quickly killed the feed) and Fala Shanshal has stated that guards of Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari beat up MP Ahmed al-Masaudi. The treaty is scheduled to be read to Parliament on Thursday when they reconvene. We noted Michael Abramowitz' report yesterday that Barack would be shelving the cry for Senate approval (of the treaty). Raed Jarrar (Raed in the Middle) details how the transition site set up by Barack has already altered the position on Senate approval. Let's wait and see how long before such alleged champions of the Constitution Matty Rothschild and Katty van-van Heuvel speak out. (Chances are they'll both remain impotent and silent. Remember, the Constitution only matters when Democrats aren't in control with their kind.) [And, yes, Raed's post does back up Michael's reporting.

Hurriyet reports that 1 "Turkish army officer was killed and five soldiers were injured" in armed clashes with the PKK today. Hurriyet also reports that, "Turkey, Iraq and the United States agreed Wednesday to form a joint committee to combat the terror organization PKK, which uses northern Iraq as a base for attacks on Turkey." Reuters notes the meet-up took place in Baghdad and "The delegations were headed by Iraqi Minister of State for National Security Shirwan al-Waeli, Turkish Interior Minister Besir Atalay and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and included both civilian and military officials, the U.S. embassy said." UPI quotes al-Maliki's spokesperson Ali Dabbagh stating the committee would be "creating deterrent measures to stop any possible activities by this organization inside Iraqi territory or within the Iraqi-Turkish border areas."

In other diplomatic news, yesterday Iraq's Foreign Ministry undersecretary Labeed Abbawi met in Baghdad with Shoji Ogawa (Japan's Ambassador to Iraq) as part of a continued process over the last few days. On Monday, the Ministry threw a reception for Martin Eshbakher, Switzerland's Ambassador to Iraq and this took place as Sweden sent their Minister of Trade, Ewa Bjorling, to Iraq for a meeting with the Ministry's Minister Hoshyar Zebari. Monday also saw Zebari meet with Hassan Kazemi who is Iran's Ambassador to Iraq. The Foreign Ministry also highlighted their Embassy in Brussels recent participation in Arab Cultural Week. And AFP reports a meet-up in Jordan Thursday among "U.N. and Arab League officials" and "[e]xperts from Iraq, Syira, Lebanon and Egypt" as well as reps from Turkey and Iran to discuss the Iraqi refugee crisis.

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Baghdad roadside bombings which wounded five people, a Mosul roadside bombing left two soldiers injured, a Mosul car bombing that claimed the life of the driver and left two Iraqi soldiers injured and a Samarra "magnetic" bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash in Salahuddin Province that resulted in 6 deaths. Reuters notes 3 'suspects' shot dead by the Iraqi military in Baghdad.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad.

iraq
mcclatchy newspapers
hussein kadhim
the washington postmary beth sheridanmichael abramowitzthe new york timescampbell robertson
raed jarrar

this was just too priceless. the goon, the sethy? he wrote me back again. to gripe at me and, get this, to say even if wanted to reply to him not to bother because he was blocking me.

what a little priss.

let me have the last word!

that's really what sethy is saying.

don't like 'sethy'? mike's name is mike, asshole. get his name right before you criticize any 1 else. so most of us got the crazy nuts kiss off e-mails.

hi, lurker, i know you're reading me.

priss pants.

what an idiot. what a loser.

well he's gone. thank goodness.

he's written nasty e-mails to most of us (we've all shared them) and it's bye-bye-bye.

speaking of idiots. albert brooks.

few can ever be provided as many chances to fail as albert has been.

but he failed over and over because he's stupid.

he proves that at aging socialite's cat litter box where he whined about 'poor' barry having to apologize to nancy reagan.

the woman had just gotten out of the hospital (broken hip?) and has to hear barack chuckling over seances she held at the white house when she never held any.

he was wrong. he damn sure should have apologized.

even if he'd been right, he should have shut his damn mouth. the woman's a widow and has been in the hospital. does he really think making jokes about her is the way to send her warm wishes?

he's a punk and albert brooks is a stooge.

go make another film no 1 sees, albert.

mel brooks is the only person who made that last name famous or ever scored at the box office.

and speaking of fruit cakes, jim hightower.

does that bastard get my mailing address from every magazine i'm signed up for.

let me set you wise, there's jim pay money for my private subcription list hightower who calls out barack obama and there's the yellow coward that writes for the progressive and cheerleads barack so loudly he nearly spills barack's piss out of his mouth. hold that pee pee, jim, you swore you'd swill it in your mouth.

it takes a lot of hypocrisy to send out the mailings he does and then take to the progressive and praise bambi like crazy.


what idiots the people who believe him in either outlet.


let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Tuesday, November 18, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the treaty dance continues, Iraq corruption continues and look who is firing the auditors, and more.


Starting with the treaty masquearding as a Status Of Forces Agreement. Chris Floyd (Baltimore Chronicle) steps up to talk realities:

The American media is by and large swallowing the propaganda line that the Iraqi cabinet's acquiescense to a "Status of Forces Agreement" (SOFA) with the U.S. occupation force means that the Iraq War will be over in in 2011. This will further cement the conventional wisdom that the suppurating war crime in Iraq is now behind us, and the topic will be moved even further off the radar of public scrutiny.
But as usual, there is a wide, yawning abyss between the packaged, freeze-dried pabulum for public consumption and thhe gritty, blood-flecked truth on the ground. As Jason Ditz reports at Antiwar.com, the so-called "deadline" in 2011 for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces remains, as ever, an "aspiration," not an iron-clad guarantee. The pace and size of the bruited "withdrawal" will remain, as ever, "conditions-based," says Pentagon and White House officials -- a position long echoed by the "anti-war" president-elect. And as we all know, "conditions" in a war zone are always subject to radical, unexpected change.

And Campbell Robertson and Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) deserve credit for this bit of reporting today on the treaty, "The concessions included establishing deadlines for withdrawing combat forces from Iraqi cities by naext June and from the county by the end of 2011, though officials said the text of the agreement included language that made those dates less rigid deadlines." While they note US Rep Bill Delahunt, they fail to note the most important detail from the press release his office issued last week:

Next week's hearing will examine the possibility that any bilateral agreement reached between the Bush Administration and the government of Iraq may effectively tie the hands of the next Administration as a result of a clause in Article 31 in a draft of the accord that would prohibit the United States from cancelling it for one year.

The hearing is tomorrow and starts at ten a.m. The most important part is "a clause in Article 31 in a draft of the accord that would prohibit the United States from cancelling it [the "bilateral agreement"] for one year." So the treaty's not all that binding. Binding contracts do not allow either party to cancel in one year, 'binding contracts' trumpeted for what they will 'do' three years from now (2011) do not allow either party the option to cancel out starting in 2009. Reuters reports that Ali Larijani, Iran's Speaker of Parliament, is decrying the treaty for "strengthening comprehensive U.S. hegemony in Iraq" while Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani released a statement today which includes: "The representatives of the Iraqi people in parliament must take on a big responsibility in this case and each must be up to this historic responsibility before God and the people."


The Washington Post asserts a 'change' in Barack Obama's stance on the treaty. First let's review the public stance this year.

During the election, the Obama-Biden campaign website revealed their stance on the so-called SOFA in "Plan for Ending the War in Iraq:"The Status-of-Forces-AgreementObama and Biden believe any Status of Forces Agreement, or any strategic framework agreement, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases. Obama and Biden also believe that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval--yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress. The Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress or allow the next administration to negotiate an agreement that has bipartisan support here at home and makes absolutely clear that the U.S. will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
Post election, Change.gov was set up as the official website for the Barack-Biden transition and if you pull up "The Obama-Biden Plan," you will find:The Status-of-Forces AgreementObama and Biden believe it is vital that a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) be reached so our troops have the legal protections and immunities they need. Any SOFA should be subject to Congressional review to ensure it has bipartisan support here at home.
That has been the official position, that Congressional approval was required and Congressional review. However, Michael Abramowitz (Washington Post) reports, "And the Obama transition team is signling that it wants Congress to review the pact, though not necessarily approve it." That would be a huge shift from where Barack once stood. It would also make Joe Biden look like a flat-out liar. Or are we all supposed to forget the April 10th Senate Foreign Reltations committee he chaired where he told the State Dept's David Satterfield and the Defense Dept's Mary Beth Long that regarding their claim that the so-called SOFA didn't need Senator approval, "I respectfully suggest that you don't have a Constitutional leg to stand on." And are we supposed to forget Senator Russ Feingold informing Satterfield, "I would suggest your difficulties are with the nature of our Constitution." Or that Senators Norm Coleman and Johnny Isakson also called out the so-called SOFA (both senators are Republicans -- there was bi-partisan objection to the Senate's Constitutional role of approving any treaty being circumvented). Back on the Democratic side, Senator Robert Menendez pointed out this bi-partisan objection, "Many of us on both sides of the aisle believe that such an agreement needs to come before Congress." Senator Jim Webb made his position clear, "I would argue it's a document that needs Senate consent."

On both sides of the aisle, senators stood up for the Constitution (and let's not forget that they stood up in the House as well including US House Rep Susan Davis) and now this is going to be tossed aside or Barack Obama thinks it is? That's what the Post reported this morning. (Friends on the transition team told me this morning and this afternoon that the position has not changed and Senate approval remains the stance. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.)

Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte spoke in Ireland yesterday where he strung together the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, "2001" and "extremism." When the current administration leaves office will they take the direct and indirect fale-linkage of Iraq to 9-11 with him? You'd think so but you'd also have thought that all that lip flapping in April meant something, that a Constituional scholar like Barack wouldn't be eager to spit on the Constitution before he's even sworn in; however, the Post feels their information on this is solid and Team Barack will not fight for or advocate Senate approval. If true, he'll go into office a damn liar and never overcome it while Democrats in the Senate will be damned in the same manner. (Russ Feingold being Russ would most likely speak out to some degree if the Senate was circumvented. Would the rest?) For eight years, Democrats and their media surrogates have tossed around phrases like "rule of law" and if they think they can drop them just because "their guy" got into the White House they better expect to see huge losses in both houses of Congress come November 2010. And you can pair this potential move by Barack with Tom Burghardt's "Obama's Intelligence Agenda: More of the Same from the 'Change Administration'" (Dissident Voice):While expectations may be high that the incoming Obama administration will reverse many of the worst features of the Bush regime–from warrantless wiretapping, illegal detention, torture, "targeted assassinations" and preemptive war–now that the cheering has stopped, expect more of the same. According to The Wall Street Journal, "President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say, an approach that is almost certain to create tension within the Democratic Party." With hyperbolic "change" rhetoric in the air, Obama is relying on a gaggle of former intelligence insiders, warmed-over Clinton administration officials and "moderate" Republicans, many of whom helped Bush craft his administration's illegal policies. With U.S. street cred at an all-time low, due in no small measure to Washington's hubristic fantasies that it really is an empire and not a rapidly decaying failed state, ruling elites have literally banked on Obama to deliver the goods. During his run for the White House, the Illinois senator may have mildly criticized some of the administration's so-called "counterterrorism" policies including the Bushist penchant for secrecy, the disappearance of "terrorist" suspects, driftnet surveillance of American citizens and legal residents, CIA "black site" gulags and the crushing of domestic dissent. But in the few scant days since the November 4 general election, the contours of what Democratic party corporatist grifters will roll-out come January 20 are taking shape. Citing Obama's carefully-crafted public relations blitz on the campaign trail opposing illegal spying, the Journal reports: Yet he ... voted for a White House-backed law to expand eavesdropping powers for the National Security Agency. Mr. Obama said he opposed providing legal immunity to telecommunications companies that aided warrantless surveillance, but ultimately voted for the bill, which included an immunity provision. The new president could take a similar approach to revising the rules for CIA interrogations, said one current government official familiar with the transition. Upon review, Mr. Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight. (Siobhan Gorman, "Intelligence Policy to Stay Largely Intact," The Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2008) The "current government official" cited by the Journal fails to specify precisely what it means to "keep the road open" when it comes to torturing prisoners of war in violation of the Geneva Conventions.


Turning to England, Peter Goldsmith is in the news. Lord Goldsmith resigned as Attorney General of England and Wales June 27, 2007. His advice to then-Prime Minister Ton Blair has been questioned for some time (PDF format warning, click here for the advice). Yesterday Lord Thomas Bingham, speaking to The British Institute of International and Comparative Law raised Goldsmith's advice. BBC reports he called the war "a serious violation of international law" and said Bingham provided Blaid with "no hard evidence" making a case for the war. Joshua Rozenberg (Telegraph of London) explains, "It is thought to be the first time that Lord Bingham has expressed his views about the legal advice given to Tony Blair by the former Attorney General. The issue never came before Lord Bingham while he was sitting as a judge." Rozenberg quotes Bingham on why the decision was doubtful:

"First, it was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had: Hans Blix and his team of weapons inspectors had found no weapons of mass destruction, were making progress and expected to complete their task in a matter of months.
"Secondly, it passes belief that a determination whether Iraq had failed to avail itself of its final opportunity was intended to be taken otherwise than collectively by the Security Council."

Frances Gibb (Times of London) quotes Bingham stating, "Particularly disturbing to proponents of the rule of law is the cynical lack of concern for international legality among some top officials in the Bush administration." The First Post emphasizes the illegal nature of the war based on Bingham's judgement.

From illegal to corruption, September 22nd in the US, the the Democratic Policy Committee held a hearing on corruption that was noted in the Sept. 23rd snapshot:

Senator Byron Dorgan: In March, the Senate Appropriations Committee held a hearing at my request, in which we heard from a very courageous Iraqi judge who headed Iraq's Commission of Public Integrity. This agency was established by the Coalition Provisional Authority after the US invasion of Iraq, and charged with rooting out corruption in the new government. Judge al-Radhi estimated that corruption in Iraq's government had resulted in the loss of $18 billion in government funds, and most of those funds had been US tax payer dollars. Judge Radhi said that instead of supporting his efforts to fight corruption, the top levels of the Iraqi government had ultimately suppressed his investigations. [. . . ] Judge Radhi also testified that since the establishment of the Commission of Public Integrity, more than 31 employees have been assassinated as well as at least an additional 12 family members. One would have expected that our own government would have been doing everything it could to support Judge Radhi's anti-corruption efforts. But in hearing of this committee back in May, we heard from two State Dept officials who said that our own government was not interested in ensuring accountability of U.S. funds in Iraq or in rooting out corruption. In fact, one of the officials, retired judge Arthur Brenna, said that some of the stolen funds were steered to the Iraqi insurgency. Yet the administration was generally indifferent to the problem. This indifference has had deadly consequences. We will hear from witnesses today -- one of whom was Judge Radhi's chief investigator in Iraq -- about how stolen US funds have gone to al Qaeda in Iraq. Our earlier hearing with Judge Brennan showed us that the State Dept turns a blind eye when it comes to corruption. Today's hearing will show us what the State Dept turned a blind eye to -- and what the consequences have been.

Today James Glanz and Riyadh Mohammed (New York Times) report that Nouri al-Maliki continues to fire those tasked with oversight and the reporters note, "Mr. Maliki's stance on oversight was most vividly illustrated by his long-running feud with Judge Rathi al-Rathi, the former head of the Commission onf Public Integrity, an oversight agency created by the Coalition Provisional Authority. After Mr. Rathi's corruption investigations repeatedly embarrassed the Maliki government, the prime minister's office supported corruption charges against Mr. Rathi himself." Matt Kelley (USA Today) reports that being suspended by the government doesn't mean that you can't still get contracts as Lee Dynamics International (suspended for bribery) proves, "Contracting officers gave Lee Dynamics International a new contract in July 2007 despite warnings from military lawyers, according to a report issued by Stuart Bowen, special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction (SIGIR). The Joint Contracting Command-Iraq did not return calls on why Lee Dynamics was awarded the new contract." Matt Kelley also notes, "The Pentagon spent about $600 million on more than 1,200 Iraq reconstruction contracts that were eventually canceled, nearly half of them for the mismanagemnt or shoddy construciton, government inspectors say." Reuters notes Iraq ranks number three on the most corrupt nation-state list by Transparency International Index and that the head of Iraq's Integrity Commission, Rahim al-Ugaili, was sent out to dance for reporters today .and declare, "In 2008 we referred 337 cases to the court. This year has seen the biggest achievement." No word apparently on whether more corruption cases would allegedly be referred or not had al-Maliki not fired at will. Glanz and Mohammed note:

At least two of the officials who were forced out were Christian women, Hana Shakuri of the Culture Ministry and Samia Youssef Sha'ia of the Christian Endowment. But most are simply senior Sunni and Shiite technocrats who have been at their posts for years and in several cases were orginally appointed in 2004 by L. Paul Bremer III, the top administrator for the Coaliton Provisional Authority.

We'll use the women's religion to grab Liz Sly's (Chicago Tribune) report on Sunday about Iraq's Mandeans who predate Christianity and Islam ("and even perhaps Judaism") but are now "on the brink of extinction" having dropped from 30,000 in 2002 to between 3,500 and 5,000 currently:

Scattered around the world in tiny communities, the chances that the religion will survive more than a few generations are slim, experts say. Mandaeism does not accept converts, and the children of Mandaeans who marry non-Mandaeans do not belong to the sect. There are only 35 priests left in the world familiar with the elaborate ceremonies of a people who claim to be directly descended from Adam and who regard John the Baptist as their most important prophet."It has been a catastrophe for us," said Sattar Jabar Helou, who heads the Mandaean sect worldwide. "This is one of the world's oldest religions, and it is going to die."Mandaeans, known as Sabis in Arabic, are just one of several minorities who have historically given Iraq its distinct identity as a cradle of religious diversity. All have suffered disproportionately from the spread of anarchy and extremism in the wake of the U.S. invasion.Iraq's once-substantial Christian community has seen its numbers dwindle from about 800,000 to 500,000. Yazidis, a lettuce-shunning minority that venerates the forces of good and evil, have been targeted for attacks in their enclaves along the borders of Iraqi Kurdistan. Shabbaks, a Muslim sect that permits alcohol and is neither Sunni nor Shiite, have been persecuted in their ancestral lands near the northern city of Mosul.

Turning to today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing inside the home "of Sadi Mahdi, a general inspector in the ministry of electriticy" which left "Sadi's son Mustafa and his wife" wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded two people, a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded one person, another Baghdad roadside bombing and this one left two people wounded and a Mosul car bombing that claimed 1 life and ten other people injured. Reuters notes a Sinjar bombing that claimed 1 life and left thirteen people injured,

Shootings?

Reuters notes 5 'suspects' were shot dead in Samarra and three more wounded.

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 15 corpses discovered in Baghdad

Meanwhile Greg Mitchell (Editor & Publisher) continues to explore service members deaths in Iraq from non-combat, "Here is today's horror story, involving Sgt. Mason Lewis of Virginia. A year ago, the military told his mom he had died in a fall. By implication: his fault. Yesterday a local TV outlet reported that the official probe has belatedly revealed: 'Army investigators discovered a poorly maintained bucket loader with no brakes and sluggish hydraulics, operated by an inexperienced crew, led to Mason's death'."

Mickey Z (at CounterCurrents) points out the little confidence game so many on the left are playing at present regarding a hopey-changey Corporatist War Hawk:And let's say Howard Zinn wrote an article that talked about what this man should do, what he hoped he'd do. For example: "announce the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan" and "renounce the Bush doctrine of preventive war as well as the Carter doctrine of military action to control Midest oil." Also: "radically change the direction of U.S. foreign policy, declare that the U.S. is a peace loving country which will not intervene militarily in other parts of the world, and start dismantling the military bases we have in over a hundred countries. Also he must begin meeting with Medvedev, the Russian leader, to reach agreement on the dismantling of the nuclear arsenals, in keeping with the Nuclear Anti-Proliferation Treaty." Then raise taxes on the rich and combine that windfall with the hundreds of billions of dollars freed from the military budget to "give free health care to everyone (and) put millions of people to work" and thus "transform" the United States and "make it a good neighbor to the world."
Well, Howard Zinn has written such an article ("Obama's Historic Victory," Nov. 12, 2208) but is anyone calling him delusional and ridiculing him for even suggesting such insane expectations? The tens of thousands of readers who look to Zinn as a trusted voice of wisdom and reason are being dangerously misled by an article that omits the reality that every indication points to Barack Obama doing the exact opposite of what Zinn writes. Zinn knows as well as anyone that not an iota of evidence exists that Obama would do anything approaching what is described above. For a man of Zinn's stature on the Left to even hint of such a possibility is a shockingly irresponsible act and one that only contributes to the misguided perception that Obama's election is somehow a victory for the progressive Left.



iraq
chris floydthe washington postmichael abramowitzthe new york timescampbell robertsonsteven lee myers
james glanz
riyadh mohammedtom burghardt
matt kelley
liz sly
mcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudi
greg mitchell
mickey z

above is isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Ghosts of Network Bombs Past and Present" and don't you love it. it's monday and you know what that means.

heroes? if you go to the website there are many things you'll find including but not limited to streaming videos.

nathan?



some of you do not watch heroes. i was asked who i would sleep with if i was on the show and i said nathan and peter. i couldn't choose just 1. i'll do a photo of peter in a moment. but i was also asked who my favorite character was and i said claire.

claire?



that's claire. now for the other 1 i'd sleep with if i was a character on the show, peter.



that's the t.v. show and now it's quiz time. identify the man in the next 2 photos.








that's santiago (robert urbina). his power is some sort of time-space power. and he's the hero the audience picked.

where can you see him?

heroes' destiny is where you can watch the video.

the 2nd installment is supposed to go up tonight or tomorrow but in the 1st 1 (free to watch online), he's just learning that he has powers, going to church with his mother, seeing a young woman he's interested in and then going off to play soccer at which point the young woman speaks to some blonde woman about how they are going to use him.

heroes tonight was a huge improvement and that's probably because claire was on and so was peter, nathan and elle. they really made the show.

and it was finally moving forward. in this 1 angela (peter, nathan & sylar's mother) was finally released from the 'coma' her husband placed her in and now the 2 groups are getting ready to do battle. i was dealing with the baby at the end so i didn't see if nathan's girlfriend was on a side. i think she was on the bad side. i saw her walking but missed which group she ended up with.

but it was probably the best episode of this season.

now we're talking about whining ass seth. 1st, marcia's written about the prick in 'Regarding Seth.' i'm going to write about him here and, for the record, i did e-mail him and he sent me a little huffy e-mail.

after that prissy e-mail, i figure i'll write whatever i want.

1st, he's not and has never been a community member.

he is some 1 who has long been jealous of c.i. (this predates the online world.) and he begs for favors and this and that.

i told c.i. to blow the asshole off long ago. i was right there.

he's a pathetic excuse for a human being with a pathetic life.

and all he's doing is trying to make a name for himself online (life didn't work out too well for him) and figures the way to do that is to go after c.i.

it's really pathetic that the little bitch has to write about c.i. (and lie!) to get attention but that's how pathetic the little bitch is and has always been.

i'm being kind and not going into details. i can do that if i'm pushed.

i know about that pathetic bitch. i know all about him from elaine and c.i. going back to the 90s.
he's a known liar who fancies himself a novelist (never worked out) and will create any lie in the world.

that's what i warned c.i. about back in 2006 when he first started trying his s**t. i said, 'you know what a liar this guy is. you need to make it clear that he's not a part of this community or at some point he's going to be lying about you and people will think, 'well they are friends'.'

they are not friends.

'seth' is a user. he has always been a user and he will always be a user.

his life story really is stella dallas, if you know the movie.

and then he decided to try to be a human leech.

i can write for hours about that jerk and, if need be, i damn will well.

i've made it clear to him that i'm not in the mood for his garbage and if he continues it, i know all about him and i can fight his lies with truth and will do so.

he's some 1 who needs help (and has gotten in the past - briefly!). so he goes weeks and weeks (and months?) without blogging and he's probably off his crazy meds and so it's time for him to plan his lash out to get attention.

he's paranoid on top of every thing else, by the way.

i know where he lives, i know about his home life, i know about everything. i know about his love life. let me know if i need to pull out the big guns because the above doesn't even qualify for a b.b. gun.

he's not a member and he needs to stop telling his lies.

if he does that, he can go back to his obscurity. if he doesn't, screw you 'seth.' no 1 sets out to hurt my friend and i know that's what seth was planning. if he wants to go through with it, have at it, tiny dick. but know that i will talk about everything. i know everything. and the lies 'seth' always uses won't work for him this time because i truly do know everything about 'seth.'

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Monday, November 17, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, 17 Iraqis are reported dead and forty-six wounded, the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement continues to ease on down the road, Peaches O'Day didn't have anything on the US, and more.

Starting with news of the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. At the White House today, spokesperson Dana Perino declared, "As we've been saying since July, when we said that we would work with the Iraqis to establish a date that we would aspire to -- we just keep getting success after success on the security front in Iraq. And when you work with a partner on a negotiation, you have to concede some points. One of the points that we conceded was that we would establish these aspirational dates. We're only able to do this because of the progress that's been made by the great work of our forces, and by the Iraqi security forces as well. They, every day, gain in number, confidence and competence. And we are going to continue to work with the Iraqis, because while we did have a good step with the council of ministers approving the agreement, and then our ambassador and their foreign ministers signing it today, there are still seveal steps left to go." Indeed and anyone paying attention should have noticed something very important in Perino's wording.

Saturday Nidaa Bakhsh (Bloomberg News) cited press chatter that Sunday's cabinet vote would support the treaty. Katherine Zoepf and Atheer Kakan (New York Times) reported that a preliminary meeting was held Monday to test the waters in Parliament but the Islamic Council of Iraq skipped the meeting which "ended without any clear public resolution." Nouri al-Maliki's cabinet did approve the treaty on Sunday. Adam Ashton and Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) explained nine members of the cabinet were not present and that all but one of the 28 members present voted in favor of it leading Gordon Johndroe, White House flack, to crow, "While the process is not yet complete, we remain hopeful and confident we'll soon have an agreement that serves both the people of Iraq and the United States well and sends a signal to the region and the world that both our governments are committed to a stable, secure and democratic Iraq." And what ensued was a contest among the press to determine who could make a bigger fool out of themselves.

Top contenders included Anne Penketh (Independent of London), Campbell Robertson and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times). Penketh declared, "The Iraqi cabinet has finally approved a hard-fought security pact with the US under which all American troops are to withdraw from Iraq in three years, putting an end to the US-led occupation of Iraq that has defined America's relations with the rest of the world since the 2003 invasion." Susman insisted, "Iraq's Cabinet on Sunday overwhelmingly accepted a plan to end the U.S. military presence in Iraq by the end of 2011 and sent it on to parliament for approval, where it faces a fight from lawmakers who consider it a sellout to the Americans." Robertson and Farrell maintained, "Iraq's cabinet on Sunday overwhelmingly approved a proposed security agreement that calls for a full withdrawal of American forces fromt he country by the end of 2011." Only the Washington Post was functioning today. Mary Beth Sheridan reported -- actually reported, did what reporters are supposed to do and who knew it was that difficult but look at the other outlets -- that "the Iraqi cabinet on Sunday approved a bilateral agreement allowing U.S. troops to remain in this country for three more years." We'll come back to Sheridan's article but just absorb that because she appears to be not just the only one reporting but the only one with a grasp of facts. The UN mandate (covering the occupation) expires December 31st. A new agreement is needed or the mandate needs to be renewed by the UN Security Council for US troops to remain in Iraq (if it's a treaty with the US; renewing the UN mandate would actually cover all foreign troops). Somehow everyone in the press thinks the treaty is about withdrawal. It was never about withdrawal, it was about creating a legal context and framework to allow US troops to remain in Iraq. But apparently it was bring your inner-child to work day today and they were allowed to run free. Sheridan covers the basics:

The accord still needs approval from Iraq's parliament, but the cabinet vote indicated that most major Iraqi parties supported it. The Iraqi government spokesman portrayed the pact as closing the book on the occupation that began with the U.S.-led invasion in 2003."The total withdrawal will be completed by December 31, 2011. This is not governed by circumstances on the ground," the spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, told Iraqi reporters, pointedly rejecting the more conditional language that the U.S. government had sought in the accord.American officials have pointed out that there is nothing stopping the next Iraqi government from asking some U.S. troops to stay. The Iraqi military is years away from being able to defend the country from external attack, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.

Yes, the spokespeople did run with spin. Why so many in the press elected to adopt it is a mystery. Some Iraqis do believe the spin (others bought off and intimdated by the State Dept don't give a damn) but then they thought the original version gave them 'rights' over US service members who committed crimes, now didn't they? The US really isn't that good at wars but the government has always excelled in treaties that lulled the other party into believing they were getting a good deal. It never works out that way, now does it? Not for the Native Americans, not for Panama, go down the list. But an updated treaty (only recently translated out of English) is wonderful, it's marvelous, it's . . . George W. Bush is not about to end the Iraq War. Get real.
It takes a lot of stupid to set aside US history and assume this treaty with an occupied nation is (for the first time ever) a fair and beneficial (to the Iraqis) treaty. But didn't the press do that? It's hard to figure out whether the Iraqis or the press are the NYC immigrants to the White House's Peaches O'Day, determined to sell and re-sell the Brooklyn Bridge over and over. In Every Day's a Holiday, Mae West tosses out lines that the US government could never hope to pull off (like, "I may crack a law, but I ain't never broke one") and a few that would be completely believable coming from the current administration ("Larceny nothin', you'll send 'em a check in the morning."). Though it's not surprising to see the puppet government in Iraq play the role of Fritz Krausmeyer, it's shocking to also see the press so eager to play the sap.

The propsed treaty would give US forces legal protection to remain in Iraq. It is not about withdrawal. And for those still not grasping that fact, let's return to what Dana Perino told the press today and zoom in on this: "One of the points that we conceded was that we would establish these aspirational dates." Aspirational dates? Not concrete ones. A withdrawal treaty would cover withdrawal. This treaty focuses on keeping US troops in Iraq through 2011 at which point the treaty runs out. Does that mean anything? Yes, it means that a new treaty would then be ironed out. It might or might not call for withdrawal. It might or might not do something else. But the treaty before the Iraqis right now has "aspirational dates" and is about the US remaining in Iraq through the end of 2011.

For those still confused, Phil Sands (The National) walks you through:

The troop withdrawal dates are targets, not set in stone. They are designed to appease the widely held sentiment among Iraqis that US forces must not be allowed to stay indefinitely; that they are a tolerated, necessary nuisance rather than welcomed guests. In reality, as of today there seems scant prospect that every US soldier will have left Iraq within the next three years, and all 400 or so US bases closed. But the suggestion this is going to happen makes the Sofa more palatable to a sceptical Iraqi public. It is an unremarkable and understandable political survival tactic to make a promise that will get broken, if that is what it takes to gets out of a tight spot and buy some time.

Add to it Ken Fireman (Bloomberg News) reporting that the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, is making remarks at odd with today's spin such as (on withdrawal), "To remove the entire force would be two to three years, as opposed to something we could do in a very short period of time." (Actually, all US troops could be withdrawn in the first 100 days of the new administration.) Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) observes, "Mullen emphasized that he still believes any U.S. troop reductions should be based on the levels of violence in Iraq - a position that runs counter to the official Iraqi stance." Bryan Bender (Boston Globe) explains the 'binding' contract really isn't, "Once approved by the Iraqi Parliament, which began debate on the measure today, it cannot be changed by either side for at least a year, according to Article 31 of the draft." At least a year? So in December 2009, this Troops-Home-In-2011! spin might spin right out the window? Yes.

The treaty will be the topic of a hearing this week in the US. US House Rep Bill Delahunt's office issued a press release Thursday:

U.S. Rep. Bill Delahunt, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight will hold his eighth hearing on the proposed U.S.-Iraq security agreement on Wednesday, November 19th at 10am.
Next week's hearing will examin the possibilty that any bilateral agreement, reached between the Bush Administration and teh government of Iraq may effectivly tie the hands of the next Administration as a result of a clause in Article 31 in a draft of the accord that would prohibit the United States from cancelling it for one year.
At the end of October, Delahunt joined with Congresswman Rosa DeLauro in writing to President Bush asking for a temporary extension of the UN mandate for Iraq which expires on December 31, and is the sold instrument providing U.S. troops with the legal authorization to engage in combat opeartions in Iraq.


US House Reps Bill Delahunt and Rosa DeLauro penned also penned July 8th's "The Wrong Partnership for Iraq" (Washington Post).

Reaction to the news of the council signing off on the treaty was mixed. AP quotes Mohsen Bilal, Syrian Information Minister, stating the treaty is an "award to the occupiers." However, Gina Chon (Baghdad Life, Wall Street Journal) notes that Iran's Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi hails the council's move as a "victory" and Chon also notes, "When asked about the change in tone from Iran, a senior U.S. official said today there was absolutely no softening in Iran's position. He added that Iran's opposition was not just about getting the U.S. out of Iraq, but also ultimately winning the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Another U.S. official characterized the recent comments from Iran as an adjustment in strategy to try to take credit for the approval of the security pact from the Iraqi cabinet." Reactions within Iraq are many but we'll focus on this unnamed Iraq quoted by Sami Moubayed (Asia Times), "I never trusted Nuri al-Maliki. I would count my fingers after shaking his hands. Although we have no proof at this stage, it is clear that plenty of money was handsomely distributed last week in Baghdad, to make sure that the entire cabinet -- with no exceptions -- ratified the agreement draft with the United States. One day this will come out in the classified archives of the US, perhaps 30 years form now. . . . We now realize why no serious effort was made at getting the resigned ministers from the Sunni bloc, the Iraqi Accordance Front or the Shi'ite bloc of Muqtada al-Sadr to rejoin the Maliki cabinet. Malaki knew that if they were in office, they surely would have drowned the agreemtn within the cabinet of ministers." Archbishop Jean Benjamin Sleiman tells AP that the treay "may not be enough to lure back Christians who have fled Baghdad."

AFP reports al-Sadr's bloc in Parliament insisted that the "draft law on treaties and conventions" be reviewed instead of the treaty between the White House and al-Maliki and the speaker compromised by allowing them both to be read. Xinhau reports that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari signed the treaty today. In DC, spokesperson Sean McCormack handled today's press briefing and repeatedly side-stepped the issue of dates even when asked if they could be discussed. McCormack did note that after Parliament, "then I think it has to be ratified by the Presidency Council as a final step."

While the Parliament debates the treaty, there are other issues. IRIN notes the issue of the prisoners currently held by the US:

Local NGOs are concerned about the rights of detainees in US military custody due to be transferred to the Iraqi authorities in 2009 in line with a draft US-Iraqi security pact. "There are fears among human rights activists, NGOs and parliamentarians about what the situation of these detainees will look like when they are transferred to the Iraqi authorities," Iraqi activist Basil al-Azawi said. "As parliament represents the Iraqi people, it should act in line with the interests of Iraqis... Absolute justice must be achieved and Iraqi and international laws must be implemented when dealing with those detainees in Iraqi prisons," he told IRIN.

Meanwhile Gareth Porter (IPS) reports that despite non-stop claims and spin that Iran was steady-supplying weapons in Iraq the reality is that "only 17 percent of the weapons found in caches" could be traced to Iran and "The extremely small proportion of Iranian arms in Shi'a milita weapons caches further suggests that Shi'a militia fighters in Iraq have been getting weapons from local and international arms markets rather than from an official Iranian-sponsored smuggling network."



Tuesday's snapshot included: "Khaled Yacoub Oweis (Reuters) reports Syria refused to allow a World Food Program ship to unload rice 'at the country's main port' due to 'the percentage of cracked rice in the cargo' (according to a Syiran official). The rice was intended for some of the estimated 194,000 refugees from Iraq currently living in Syria." IRIN reports that the World Food Programme states today, "We are very hopeful for a positive outcome from the negotiations."

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a magnetic Baghdad bombing left five wounded, another resulted in two people being wounded, another resulted in three wounded, an Amarah car bombing that wounded eighteen people and a Mosul car bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer and left six people wounded. Xinhau notes an al-Mussyyab mortar attack that landed on a home and claimed the life of 1 person. Reuters notes a Sulaimaniya bombing that left three people injured, a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded two people, a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer and left three more wounded, a Mussayab roadside bombing that claimed 2 lives and left three people wounded and another Mussayab roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left one more individual injured.

Shootings?

Xinhau notes 1 "Awakening" Council member shot dead in Iskandariyah. Reuters notes 2 'suspects' shot dead in Mosul, and 5 'suspects' shot dead in Baghdad.

Corpses?


Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 corpse (female) discovered in Kirkuk and 1 in Iskandariy that was a male "Awakening" member.


Saturday Reuters reported that the US military states the helicopter hit "overhead cables" and that caused what they are terming a "hard landing." Later in the day the US military announced, "MOSUL -- Two Coalition forces Soldiers were killed after an aircraft accident in East Mosul in Ninewah province Nov. 15. The incident appears to be combat-unrelated and there was no enemy contact in the area." The announcement brought the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4201 -- the 4200 mark has been passed.


Opening non-Iraq related. Third's "Editorial: It's about equality" covers Saturday's demonstrations around the country on behalf of equality. For California, the issue was Proposition 8 which passed and outlawed and overturned same-sex marriage. A boycott list (called a "blacklist" at some sites such as antigayblacklist) has led Chris Lee to whine to UPI, "This sort of blacklist should only appear in communist countriest, should not be found in the United States." The information on those lists is public information and if you don't want to be included in it, you don't donate. If you donated it should have been to something you believed in. Apparently, you were more comfortable stroking your homophobia in the dark and a little sunlight frightens the hell out of you. Too bad. I know I wouldn't want any children to see 'therapist' Sarah Pack in San Jose, not knowing that she donated $2000 to defeat equality and I would assume a gay couple -- two men or two women -- especially wouldn't want to use her as a family therapist or for their child. Same with 'psychotherapist' Susan B. Jones of Yuba City. People using Citrus Heights' Todd Johnson's denistry work have every right to reconsider doing so. And anyone considering going to Utah should know that Bruce Andrus of Huntington Hotels in Park City, Utah gave $20,000 to destroy equality. And if you're considering getting married in Utah and you do not support discrimination, you should avoid Lisa Myler of American Fork, UT (Myler Weddings) who gave $10,000 to destroy equality. And who wants to go to Disneyland? With "scheduler" Paula Barnes tossing in $3,000 why not just go to Magic Mountain instead?

I'm sorry that some people are so stupid that they fail to grasp campaign donations are public record. But that's reality. Reality also includes that when you fund a campaign of hate, people have every right to avoid funding you by engaging you for tasks. A right to avoid funding you and, many would argue, a duty to.

iraq
bloomberg news
the new york timeskatherine zoepfleila fadelmcclatchy newspapers
hussein kadhim
anne penkeththe washington postmary beth sheridan
ann scott tyson
the new york timescampbell robertsonstephen farrellthe los angeles timestina susman
gina chonthe wall street journal
gareth porter
bill delahunt
rosa delauro

so did you see the new york times this morning?

i'm referring to donald g. mcneil jr.'s 'Rare Treatment Is Reported to Cure AIDS Patient' which deals with a berlin case where a man with aids was treated and no longer has it. from the article:

The patient, a 42-year-old American resident in Germany, also has leukemia, which justified the high risk of a stem-cell transplant. Such transplants require wiping out a patient's immune system, including bone marrow, with radiation and drugs; 10 to 30 percent of those getting them die.

and note this section as well:

That mutation, discovered in a few gay men in the 1990s and known as Delta 32, must be inherited from both parents. With it, the white blood cells produced in the marrow lack the surface receptors that allow H.I.V. to invade the immune system.

i found the reaction from u.s. scienties underwhelming and had to wonder if this was an issue of professional jealousy.

this is from australia's abc:

Doctors in the German capital Berlin were surprised to discover that a bone marrow transplant they used for the patient with leukaemia also cured him of the HIV virus.
But other scientists have warned that the cure only worked because the donor was both compatible and carrying an extremely rare double HIV resistant mutation in his genes.
Two million people die of AIDS every year and the virus has infected 33 million people worldwide.
So far all efforts to find a cure have been unsuccessful but the German discovery has raised hopes in some quarters.

and for a little background on the disease, this is from dorthy h. crawford's 'how scientists tracked down the orgin of aids' (the scotsman):

HIV is very prone to mutation, meaning that it evolves rapidly – up to a million times faster than animal DNA. This allows the virus to foil attempts by the body's immune system to eliminate it. It also allows the virus to develop drug resistance, and has so far prevented us making an effective vaccine. But the mutations are useful for tracking the virus back to its roots. By following the trail of genetic changes HIV has accumulated over time, molecular detectives traced it to west-central Africa, pinning down its launch pad to Kinshasa (previously Léopoldville), capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo, where they found viruses with the greatest genetic diversity. Just one of these HIVs, carried by a single individual, jumped from Kinshasa to Haiti, and from there to the United States, thus spawning the pandemic in the US and Europe.

But where did the ancestral virus originally come from? For several years scientists searched for HIV-like viruses among captive African primates without success, but then a team headed by Beatrice Hahn at Alabama University found a chimpanzee (called Marilyn and trained for space flight by the US air force) of one particular subspecies, Pan troglodytes, the common chimpanzee, which carried a virus similar to HIV. They suggested that HIV jumped from chimps to humans in Africa, perhaps during the bloody process of killing and butchering chimps for bush meat. To prove this they needed to isolate viruses from wild chimps, but these animals are reclusive, endangered and live in remote jungle areas, so taking blood samples was out of the question. Instead, scientists resorted to collecting chimp faeces from the forest floor at ten sites in south-east Cameroon known to be chimpanzee territory. After air-lifting some 600 samples to the US and analysing them for chimp subspecies as well as viruses, they pointed the finger unequivocally at chimpanzees in Cameroon as the origin of HIV.

Another part of HIV's complex history fell into place last month when a group of US scientists compared the genetic material of two HIVs rescued from human samples taken in Léopoldville and stored since 1959.

The differences between them showed that even 50 years ago, HIV had been around long enough to accumulate a substantial number of mutations, and dated HIV's transfer to humans to the beginning of the 20th century.

so there's some science news and it's about aids which we still have no cure for. the berlin case is something that seems promising to me and i would assume that even if it is considered too costly to perform in large numbers, if it worked it would provide researches with additional inspiration aswell as avenues to pursue.

and that's really going to be it for me tonight because i do think adis is important and i do think what happened in berlin matters. a cure could be a few years away and that really excites me.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'


Friday, November 14, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the treaty gets vocal supporters and foes, Blackwater finds out the life of a mercenary isn't all fun and games, and more.


Earlier this week, Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, "The State Department is preparing to slap a multi-million dollar fine on private military contractor Blackwater USA for shipping hundreds of automatic weapons to Iraq without the necessary permits. Some of the weapons are believed to have ended up on the country's black market, department officials told McCarthy, but no criminal charges have been filed in the case." Today Brian Ross and Jason Ryan (ABC News) add, "A federal grand jury in North Carolina is investigating allegations the controversial private security firm Blackwater illegally shipped assault weapons and silencers to Iraq, hidden in large sacks of dog food, ABCNews.com has learned" and ABC's consultant John Kiriakou (formerly CIA) states, "The only reason you need a silencer is if you want to assassinate someone." Tod Robberson (Dallas Morning News) wonders why Blackwater continues to get tax payer money, "I guess it wasn't enough that Blackwater gunmen slaughtered Iraqi civilians on the streets of Baghdad and helped undermine the U.S. war effort in Iraq. . . . And ye, its current $1.2 billion in federal contracts curiously seem unaffected. If the American public only knew how cozy the relationship is between State Department personnel and its biggest contractors, they'd be appalled." Though there have been many slaughters, September 17, 2007 was the one which recieved the most attention AP reports today that that slaughter of 17 resulted in prosecutors drafting an indictment against six employees of Blackwater Worldwide". Today Robert Brodsky (GovernmentExecutive) notes New America Foundation's October report calling for the utilization of the State Dept's Bureau of Diplomatic Secuirty and not mercenaries/private contractors "to protect U.S. assets and personnel" and he also points out "An August Congressional Budget Office study found that roughly $1 out of every $5 the U.S. government has spent in Iraq has gone to contractors. The budget analysts said there is roughly one contractor on the ground in Iraq for every member of the military, although most are not American and only a fraction are private security contractors."

At the US State Dept, spokesperson Robert Wood declared of the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement, "We certainly hope to get that deal. We think it's a good agreement and the Iraqis will have to take it through their political process. And we'll see what goes -- you know, see where it goes from there." Where it goes next is an expected Sunday vote. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports that Jawad al-Bolani, Minister of the Interiror, is endorsing the treaty and quotes him stating, "The security agreement is important for Iraq to ban and stop foreign influence and interference. The Iraqi people need this security agreement." BBC noted in June 2006 that al-Bolani declared (upon being voted into his post), "The interior ministry will preserve Iraqi blood." A laughable claim since the thugs of the Interior Ministry are infamous for spilling blood (and for expelling Iraqis from their legal homes).

al-Bolani is one of the Iraqi officials targeted by the US State Dept and it appears to have paid off. (Rumors are he sees himself as the next al-Maliki.) Supposedly, there is one more Iraqi official among those currently pressured that the State Dept thinks they can publicly flip before the Sunday meeting. al-Bolani by himself has very little impact (Kurds have never taken to him and Sunnis don't believe he's done much of anything to tackle the Ministry's assaults on Sunnis while most Shi'ites in the government see him as too sectarian) so the hope is that one or more flipping publicly ahead of Sunday's meeting could create a wave leading into the meeting that would put pressure on others to support the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement.

UPI reports that KRG president Massoud Barzani has declared, "If the pact is not signed, the situation in the country may deteriorate to the point of a civil war." In a live Washington Post online chat yesterday, Dana Priest declared of the treaty, "Still a stand-off with the clock ticking." In the most recent update, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki declared today "that he now supports a security agreement with the United States, a Shiite Muslim legislator [Sami al Askari] who's close to the premier said Friday. . . This would represent an about-face for the Shiite prime minister, who was a hard-line holdout throughout the negotiations and had publicly criticized early drafts of the agreement."

Rania Abouzeid (Time magazine) states Moqtada al-Sadr "threw down the gauntlet: he threatened to resume attacks against U.S. troops if they don't leave Iraq 'without retaining bases or signing agreements" al-Sadr is quoted declaring, "I repeat my demand that the occupier leave the land of our beloved Iraq unconditionally, without retaining bases or signing agreements. If they remain, I will support the resistance . . . as long as their weapons are directed exclusively against the occupier." Iran's Press TV adds, "Moqtada al-Sadr has called on supporters to gather next week for weekly Friday prayers in a central Baghdad square to voice their protest to the pact." Robert Craig (Indianapolis Star) notes that the White House wants to "maintain more than 58 military bases indefinitely" and wonders, "So why would Iraq renew SOFA if it is apparently anxious to rid itself of occupation? Is this because the U.S. is holding $50 billion of oil money hostage in the New York Federal Reserve Bank? Why not simply release this money to help rebuild Iraq and futher its independence and national integrity?" Moqtada al-Sadr wasn't the only cleric issuing a call not to sign the treaty. Hamza Hendawi (AP) reports Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has "vowed to intervene if he concludes that a proposed agreement governing the presence of U.S. forces infringes on national security." At Real News Network (video), Paul Jay addresses the obstacles to the treaty and other dimensions.

While the White House attempts to extend the US engagement in the illegal war, AP reports that Bulgaria is leaving (155 soldiers) and quotes their prime minister, Sergei Stanishev, declaring yesterday the departure was necessary because "the presence of the Bulgarian military contingent on a humanitarian mission in Iraq ends on Dec. 31." And they aren't the only ones leaving. Russia's Novosti reports Azerbaijan's parliament voted today to pull their "150 peacekeepers" out of Iraq by an 86 to one vote ("The troops are currently protecting a hydroelectric power station in the town of Al-Hadida, which supplies Baghdad with half of its electricity.") David Williams (The Daily Mail) cites Iraq's National Security Adviser Muwafaq al-Rubaie as the source for the assertion that the UK will pull all troops out of Iraq "by the end of next year" (4,000 "mostly based near the southern city of Basra"). Deborah Haynes (Times of London) expands on the story by quoting al-Rubaie's statements to their paper, "By the end of next year there will be no British troops in Iraq."

Meanwhile, Iraq has set January 31st as the date for provincial elecitons. (Unless they're delayed again.) Today Staffan de Mistura, UN Secretary General's Special Representative for Iraq, informed the UN Security Council, "The Government of Iraq should be commended for the progress so far achieved. It will now be called upon to deliver services, security guarantees, conditions for free and fair elections, credible and independent institutions and to resolve tensions among its various communities." de Mistura continued, "The forthcoming elections are rightly viewed as an opportunity to establish a more inclusive sectarian balance and shape a new political landscape and are the most significant political event in the coming months. It is therefore all the more important to ensure that they be perceived as free and fair and that the Iraqis, with the support of the United Nations and the international community, be able to ensure respect of operational timelines, with an IHEC free of political pressure." The UN notes on provincial elections, "According to the report, the passage of the provincial election law on 24 September was a milestone, as it instituted an open-list system and ensured female representation on governorate councils. In addition, the Independent High Electoral Commission demonstrates the ability to mobilize a nationwide voter registration update without serious security or logistical problems. However, there is still potential for election-related violence and instability, as witnessed recently in Mosul. It is, therefore, essential to organize the elections in a secure environment and in a transparent manner." In addition, they also point out, "He and several other speakers also expressed concern about the recent incursion into Syria which had resulted in civilian deaths. That incursion was a violation of the United Nations Charter."
Violence? The wire services are silent. China's Xinhau notes, "Two American soldiers died in separate non-combat related incidents in Iraq, the U.S. military said on Friday." Both are noted here: The US military announces, "A Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldier died as the result of a non-combat related cause at approximately 3:50 a.m. Nov. 13 in Baghdad." And the US miliary announces: "A Coalition force Soldier died as a result of a non-combat related cause at approximately 11:52 a.m Nov. 13 in western Iraq." But we'll note them again because the announcement were made late. The two deaths bring the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4197.



In US presidential news, Bruce Dixon (Black Agenda Report) begins the first of
a multi-part series on holding the incoming administration accountable:

It is not an exaggeration to say that Barack Obama's career since 2004 has been all about soaring promises to capture ardent voters followed by lowering standards to please his biggest financial contributors. An early foe of the Iraq war and Patriot Act during his US Senate
campaign, Obama voted to continue one and pass the other once in office. Obama's pledge to withdraw from Iraq has more loopholes by now than swiss cheese. His promise to filibuster warrantless eavesdropping and immunity for telecom lawbreakers morphed into
a vote for both, and his campaign trail promise to pursue Dr. King's unfinished quest for economic justice flipped into lobbying the
congress in support of the multi-trillion dollar no-strings-attached
Wall Street bailout.
The first appointments of the new regime are truly disturbing. Illinois
congressman Rahm Emanuel, the new White House chief of staff is a
certifiable Democratic neocon who helped strongarm NAFTA, welfare reform
and the Telecom Act of 1996 though congress for Bill Clinton. He served on the board of Freddie Mac while it was busy inflating the housing bubble, and was
an early and unrepentant advocate of invading Iraq and bombing Iran. As head
of the DCCC, responsible for recruiting and funding 2006 Democratic c
ongressional candidates, Emanuel used corporate contributions to try to
knock more than a twenty antiwar Democrats out of primary races in favor of
pro-war Democrats. Confronted with choices between pro-war Democrats and
pro-war Republicans, voters rejected most of Emanuel's picks, costing
Democrats as many as ten Congressional seats.
Larry Summers, early front-runner to succeed Bush Treasury secretary Henry Paulson, was happy to be Enron's eyes and ears at Treasury, according to a handwritten note to his pal Ken Lay you can find at OpenLeft.com. Summers famously remarked that third world countries were "underpolluted". His
solution to this "problem" is encouraging them to sell their share of "rights" to poison the planet's oceans and air to wealthy western corporations through a system like the present futures and commodities exchanges. Both the outgoing Bush and the incoming Obama administrations are enthusiastic advocates of
this "market-based" approach. So much for a Change We Can Breathe In.

On the same topic, Media Lens' "Obama: Wiping the Slate Clean -- Appearance And Reality In The Relaunch Of Brand America" (Dissident Voice):
It was a dawn of the dead - Blair left behind him the almost unimaginable horror of Iraq and Afghanistan.
A rare poll conducted by Ipsos last January of 754 Iraqi refugees in Syria found that "every single person interviewed by Ipsos reported experiencing at least one traumatic event in Iraq prior to their arrival in Syria."
UNHCR estimated that one in five of those registered with the agency in Syria
over the previous year were classified as "victims of torture and/or violence."
The survey showed that fully 89 per cent of those interviewed suffered depression and 82 per cent anxiety. This was linked to terrors endured before they fled
Iraq – 77 per cent of those interviewed reported being affected by air bombardments, shelling or rocket attacks. Eighty per cent had witnessed a shooting... and so on.
John Pilger was a lonely voice in 1997 warning that Blair was a dangerous fraud, a neocon in sheep's clothing. As Pilger later pointed out, the media could hardly plead ignorance:
Blair's Vichy-like devotion to Washington was known: read his speeches about a new order led by America. His devotion to Rupert Murdoch, who flew him and Cherie Booth around the world first class, was known. His devotion to an extreme neoliberal Thatcherite economics was known…3
Over the past two weeks -- one decade and three wars later -- the same media have been insisting, as one, that US president-elect Barrack Obama is another "new dawn". A Guardian leader observed:
They did it. They really did it. So often crudely caricatured by others, the American people yesterday stood in the eye of history and made an emphatic choice for change for themselves and the world…
Today is for celebration, for happiness and for reflected human glory. Savour those words: President Barack Obama, America's hope and, in no small way, ours too.
In the Guardian's news section, Oliver Burkeman described the victory as "historic, epochal, path breaking". But there was more:
"Just being alive at a time when it's so evident that history is being made was elating and exhausting."
In 2003, the Guardian's foreign editor, Ed Pilkington, told us:
"We are not in the business of editorialising our news reports."4
Someone forgot to tell Burkeman, indeed the entire Guardian news team. At times like these, the media's claims to balanced coverage seem to belong to a different universe. Over the last two weeks, the public has been subjected to a one-way delusional deluge by the media. The propaganda is such that comments made by independent US presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, appear simply shocking:
What we're seeing is the highest level of resignation and apathy and powerlessness I've ever seen. We're not talking about hoopla. We're not talking about 'hope'. We're not talking about rhetoric. We're not talking about 'rock star Obama'. We're talking about the question that is asked everywhere I go: 'What is left for the American people to decide other than their own personal lives under more restrictive circumstances year after year?' And the answer is: almost nothing.5
Nader says of Obama: "This is show business what you're seeing." The crucial point: "Obama doesn't like to take on power."5


MediaChannel has opened MEDIA STORE for the holidays: "The Economy may be crashing, but we as a culture still believe in a season of giving. That's why MediaChannel and GlobalVision are opening an online store, as others close theirs, to share books and films we believe offer food for the mind and make for valuable gifts. Buying through us helps support MediaChannel. Your support in this season means alot to us. Our last fundraising drive has helped keep us alive! Your continuing help will keep us online and on the issues we all care about."
Public broadcasting notes. NOW on PBS explores green collar jobs:Can something as common as building materials represent an opportunity to create jobs, help the needy, and save the planet? This week, NOW looks at two "green" projects keeping furniture, paint, cabinets, and other building supplies out of landfills and getting them into the hands of those who need them most. Will they be devastated by the economic meltdown, or do they signal a possible way out?Based in the Bronx, New York, Greenworker Co-operatives aims to set up worker-owned green businesses. The first of these is Rebuilders Source, a store that sells recycled and donated building materials at affordable prices--items that would otherwise have ended up in a landfill."My vision now is a completely green South Bronx," says Bronx-born entrepreneur Omar Freilla, the founder of Greenworker Co-operatives, "with businesses throughout the area that are owned and run by people living in the area together."On the other side of the country, in Southern California, Materials Matter matches donations of furniture and high quality building materials with individuals, organizations, and homeless shelters that use the materials to literally rebuild lives. But the faltering economy has had an impact."We have to decide whether the value of that donation will be worth the cost of transportation," says Materials Matter co-founder Alison Riback on her blog. "[The economic downturn] put a huge dent in our 'always say yes to a donation' philosophy."This show is part of Enterprising Ideas, NOW's continuing spotlight on social entrepreneurs working to improve the world through self-sustaining innovation.

NOW on PBS begins airing tonight in most PBS markets, check local listings. Washington Week also begins airing on some PBS stations tonight (and later throughout the weekend on others). Gwen's joined by Greg Ip (The Economist), Dan Balz (Washington Post), Janet Hook (Los Angeles Times) and Karen Tumulty (Time magazine) and topics will include the proposed auto bailout, Barack, Bully Boy transitioning to civilian war time (okay, Karen won't really discuss that, but she should) and Congressional races. On Barack, CBS' 60 Minutes gets the first extended television interview with him since the election (Steve Kroft interviews him) and that airs this Sunday.That's public broadcasting TV, public broadcasting radio includes WBAI and we'll note these programs airing Sunday and Monday on WBAI:Sunday, November 16, 11am-noonTHE NEXT HOURFormer WBAI News Director and Dan Rather writer, Paul Fischer's latest newsical in the series "What's the Freqency, Kenneth?" This time, Paul goes one joke over the line...to confess his lifelong addiction to drug songs.Monday, November 17, 2-3pmCat Radio CafeFeminist author Vivian Gornick on her latest book of literary criticism, "The Men In My Life," downtown icon Edgar Oliver on "East 10th Street Self-Portrait," a play by and about him; and playwright Stephen Belber on his newest work, "Geometry of Fire,"about an investment-banker-turned Marine sniper returned from Iraq and a Saudi-American who just wants to get laid. Hosted by Janet Coleman and David Dozer." Broadcasting at WBAI/NY 99.5 FMStreaming live at WBAIArchived at Cat Radio Cafe

Turning to utter trash. May 28, 2008, Amy Goodman declared on Democracy Sometimes!:In other campaign news, Senator Obama says he's accepted Senator Hillary Clinton's explanation for controversial comments invoking the 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kenney to justify her continued stay in the Democratic presidential race. In an interview in South Dakota Friday, Clinton cited Kennedy's assassination as an example of a contest continuing through June.

Hillary: My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it.

Goody then stated: "Clinton explained she was trying to cite a historical precedent for a June presidential contest." Trying to? She was asked that as Goody well knew (but Goody is the trash who chose to publish in LARRY FL**T's H**TLER MAGAZINE). As Jake Tapper noted May 23 (five days earlier than Goody) the editorial board (South Dakota's Argus Leader) asked her "about calls for her to drop out." And Hillary responded "This is part of an ongoing effort to end this before it's over. I sure don't think it's over." A comment Goody CHOSE to leave out because SHE"S A LIAR. After "I don't understand it," Hillary says "And there's a lot of speculation about why it is." Why she's being pushed to drop out. But to include that wouldn't have fit GOODY LIAR's non-stop attempts to sell Barack.

There's a reason Bernardine Dohrn's always been the partner in charge of that marriage. Bill Ayers is the Barbara Bush of that pair and only more so with each passing year. Liar Goody brought them on Democracy Now and she never asked about Prarie Fire.

In May, Goody wanted to distort Hillary's remarks and make it appear she was trampling on the memory of RFK. Today, Goody brought on Bill and Bernardine and never asked them about the dedication in their book Prarie Fire to Sirhan Sirhan (RFK assassin).

Bill Ayers is on a publicity blitz that included Good Morning America today. I know Bill and Bernardine and we're not going to let lies stand. First off Bernardine, you know not to speak without knowing the facts. So let's start with your error:

I think my favorite -- our favorite moment of this whole election campaign -- and there were certainly, really, many unprecedented and moving movements of the last year and a half -- was when, at the height of the primary campaign, Senator -- then-Senator Obama was asked, "Who would Martin Luther King support? Would you support you or Senator Clinton?" And without his frequent pauses in thinking, he said, "He wouldn't support either of us. He's be out in the street building an independent social justice movement."

No, no, Bernardine. No, Barack's not MLK ("Would you support you or Senator Clinton?"). No, Barack didn't say what you said he did. No, it wasn't Hillary and Barack alone on stage. CNN debate, Wolf Blitzer the moderator. He started with John Edwards, "And, Senator Edwards, let me start with you. If Dr. Martin Luther King were alive today, unfortunately, he's not, but if he were alive today, why do you think he would or why should he endorse you?" Edwards replied than Wolf's full question to Barack was, "Senator?" Barack didn't say "either of us," he said MLK wouldn't "endorse any of us" and Barack did not say "He's be out in the street building an independent social justice movement." in that debate. You may wish he had and certainly it would help your friends if he had; however, he DID NOT SAY THAT. You know facts matter. That was embarrassing. It was all the more sto for Democracy Now! which didn't catch your multiple mistakes.

Hillary: Well, there is no doubt that change comes from the extraordinary efforts of the American people. I've seen it in my life. I'm sitting here as a result of that change. It is also true -- and Dr. King understood this. He campaigned for political leaders. He lobbied them. He pushed them. He cajoled. He did everything he could to get them over the line so that they would be part of the movement that he gave his life for. There are people sitting in this audience right now, John Lewis, Jim Clyburn, they were part of those kinds of efforts, going so far as they could to make it clear that we had to live up to our values and our ideals. And then there was a meeting of morality and politics. And the political leaders finally responded.

That's the closet anyone came to making the remark Bernardine wrongly attributes to Barack ("He's be out in the street building an independent social justice movement.").
Bill declared, "We were asked by our state senator if we would hold a coffee for him some, I don't know, twelve or fifteen years ago, and we did . . ." Bill, you're lying. You're lying because Alice Palmer has already stated she did no such thing and you're lying because I know you and I know who talked Barack up to me back when he was running for the US Senate. It wasn't Alice Palmer (whom I've never met), care to get honest Bill? (Those late to the party on this tale shared here and at Elaine's site since 2005 -- Elaine and I went to the private, big money fundraiser for the 'anti-war' candidate with the intention of writing checks for the maximum donation only to discover an 'anti-war' candidate who did not believe in withdrawal because 'the troops were there'. Once Elaine and I clarified that point, we immediately left without donating a cent.)

Here's Bill rambling on about Weather Underground (Bernardine was the leader, not Bill, of WU and that's something the right refused to get correct because they were blinded by their own sexism):

But on the other hand, I don't expect somebody to today endorse what we did forty years ago or even to understand it. To me, nothing that he said is either, you know, false or wrong or terrible. The other thing I guess I would say about it is, we would disagree on our evaluation of what went on forty years ago, but we disagree on many things, so it's not surprising.

Bill, many of us disagreed with you in real time. And, no, you were not of the peace movement. I fully understand what Weather did and I have no need to condemn you, Bernardine or anyone else for it. But I also have no reason to lie about it.

You chose the road of violence. I've often said, "Weather was a violent response to a criminal government that used violence." But Weather was a violent response. The US government behaved in a criminal manner. I don't deny it. But, no, Bill, the peace movement was not Weather and many disagreed with you and some, like Toad Gitlan, have insisted Weather's violence destroyed the left. (I disagree with that and have always disagreed with that.) What Weather did was not about ending the illegal war and let's not pretend it was. It was an attempt to bring revolution into the streets (which is why you lived in working class neighborhoods despite your own financial circumstances) and it was an armed revolution. But they wanted to set the stage for the armed revolution and that wasn't about Vietnam so stop lying. When Bernardine made her ridiculous statement about Sharon Tate's murder, that wasn't about Vietnam either. So stop the lies.

Well, you know, I would say calling those acts despicable forty years ago, I guess I would disagree with. But more to the point is that it's an irrelevant--it's an irrelevant issue in this campaign.

No, it's not irrelevant. Domestic terrorism is what Weather engaged in. There's no need to deny that and you've certainly never denied it one-on-one.

Bill then needs to lie hard and starts talking about the sixties. Weather's actions were in the chronological seventies. Bill's attempting to couch his argument on grounds he can't stand on and he knows it.

On the other hand, I think that it's a sad thing that we've never really had a truth and reconciliation process about the war in Vietnam, about the black freedom movement and what happened. And that means, among other things, that we haven't learned the lessons of invasion and occupation. We haven't learned the lessons of what happens when people get involved in direction action and struggle, and both the advances that can be made and also the limits of those struggles. We haven't learned the lessons that might make for a more peaceful, more just future. I think that's the problem.

Well if you believe that, maybe you should have worked for such a process. But you didn't. You were underground and active in Weather at that time, remember? And long after US troops left Vietnam, you were still hiding out. If you think people need to get honest, well go for it, sport. Start cataloguing your own actions. Nixon's dead. Henry Kissinger should only have a few more years left. But if you want 'honesty,' then start offering some.

Repeating, Weather was a violent response to a violent and criminal government. It's not surprising, it's not shocking. But it's not the peace movement and shouldn't be passed off as such. Toad Gitlin and The Nation magazine disgraced themselves during 2008. Both had long called out Bill and Bernardine's actions in Weather and suddenly they wanted to act like they never had. I don't find the actions shocking. I can make a political defense for them. I cannot and do not confuse Weather's actions with the peace movement. I don't think they destroyed the left or the peace movement. But I don't lie about what Weather did. And consider how often (and how loudly) Bill laughed a few decades back at the couple mocked as "The Mork & Mindy of the Left" (we'll be kind and not name the couple), it's a sad moment to see him do just what he accused "Mork" of -- minimize his actions for respectability.


iraqthe washington posternesto londonodana priestmcclatchy newspaperswarren p. strobel
leila fadelmedia lensjohn pilger
bruce dixon
Brian Ross
deborah haynes
dan balzjanet hookwbaicat radio cafejanet colemandavid dozervivian gornick60 minutescbs newskaren tumultywashington weeknow on pbspbs
the real news network
nprall things considered